i 



i?f 



ID]. 

t LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. # 



^ A 

f UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. ! 



CONSIDERATIONS 



RESPECTING 



THE RECOGNITION OF FRIENDS IN ANOTHER WORLD; 



AFFIRMED DESCENT OF JESUS CHRIST INTO HELL; 



PHRENOLOGY IN CONNEXION WITH THE SOUL, 



ON THE EXISTENCE OF A SOUL IN BRUTES. 



JOHN REDMAN COXE, M.D. 



La maniere dont Dieu a oper6, est cach6e dans ses secrets. — II nous est permis de 
les examiner, d'en rechercher les circonstances, de proposer queiques conjectures 
sur la maniere dont le tout s'est passe. Mais il y auroit de la t6merit6 de decider 
3ur une matiere que Dieu n'a pas jug6 a propos de nous reveler." 

Calmet, sur les Apparitions, &c. Preface. 



PHILADELPHIA ; 
GEORGE S. APPLETON, 148 CHESTNUT STREET, 

NEW YORK; 

D. APPLETON & CO. 200 BROADWAY. 

1845. 






Entered according to act of Congress in the year 1845, by John Redman Coxe, 
M.D. in the Clerk's office of the District Court of the Eastern District of Penn- 
sylvania, 



'John C. Cla'rk, Printer 



INTRODUCTION 



It is scarcely necessary to write a Preface in order to ex- 
plain the nature of the three Essays which constitute the 
following pages. They are in themselves so short, that a 
prefatory outline would nearly equal either of them in extent. 
I shall therefore merely remark, that the subjects are of suffi- 
cient interest to induce the attention of a few leisure moments; 
the reflections from which may possibly be found not to be 
altogether unprofitable to the reader. 

In this happy country, where all are permitted to think for 
themselves (that is, if they choose), without restriction from 
religious or sectarian prejudices, and to commit to the press 
their views on any subject that they may deem interesting to 
themselves or to others, no apology is necessary from the 
writer, though but a layman, for venturing on certain topics 
of inquiry, which to many, will appear altogether the property 
of the, clergy. Such, however, are not his sentiments. If of 
any importance, they are equally so to the laity as to the cler- 
gy: and if the former would more frequently enter on the 
consideration of congenial subjects, and in which all are 
alike concerned, it is probable that much of that theological 
enmity of ditferent sects of Christians now prevailing through 
the world, might be softened down and chastened, by dispers- 
ing the dogmas with which every sect abounds, and which, 
(the offspring of theological and ecclesiastical pride, from even 
the times of the apostles), have been the chief means of sepa- 
rating the Christian community, and splitting it into cliques 
and parties, unwarranted by Scripture. The laity, unfortu- 
nately, at all times, too ignorant, or too idle, to think seriously 
for themselves, have been satisfied to do that in spiritual, 
which they would not do in their temporal concerns, viz : to 
embrace every wild, vague, or enthusiastic notion, that their 
spiritual directors have thought proper to advance. The odium 
theologicum thus fostered in the breasts of those, whose pro- 
vince it was to preach peace and good will to all, soon assumed 
the spirit of party, and persecution and death early followed 
in the train of the predominant doctrines. Such wholesale 
allowance to the clergy, gave them a supremacy, that the 
laity have never been able to the present time, fully to shake 
off. It is perhaps a little moderated. — Rome is not exactly 



IV INTKODUCTION. 

what she was four centuries ago ; her principles remain how- 
ever the same, and opportunity alone is wanting to retrace 
and renew, the barbarities of her ancient hierarchy. Even 
here, in this enlightened age and country, now, we see Ameri- 
cans, professing allegiance to the United States, yet fettered 
hand and foot to the Papal power ! Our Protestant brethren 
are, in like manner, though inferior in degree, made instru- 
ments of designing men, in separations and divisions of the 
various denominations, to carry out views, in which, as merely 
laymen, they have little, if any interest. If political liberty 
requires continual watchfulness and unremitted energy to 
maintain its standing; not less does that liberty require it, on 
which our everlasting destiny may depend. And this can be 
effective only, through the energy and determined opposition 
of the laity to every encroachment on their rights as church 
members, whether in modifications of mere ceremonies, as 
entering wedges of some further innovation, or in principles, 
that, flowing from the pulpit, may at length involve them in 
the vortex, and bear them on unconsciously to the precincts 
of Rome ! 

I anticipate a due degree of animadversion on the part of 
those from whom I may unfortunately differ. I have, how- 
ever, long since, ceased to rest my absolute faith on any topic, 
religious or otherwise, on the simple affirmation of a fallible 
fellow creature. Unless his proofs are fully and fairly esta- 
blished on the Scriptures he professes to unfold, his assertions 
are but on an equality with those of his opponent, — and are to 
be taken for what a balance in the accounts of either may ap- 
pear to be reasonable. 1 ask no more for the following pages, 
and shall be perfectly satisfied with the award of the reader 
whether that be favourable to, or opposed to the opinions 
herein advocated. 



The Titles of the Essays are as follow : 

On the Recognition of Departed Friends in another State of 
Existence : whether they have cognizance of the Affairs of 
this World, and if so, its probable Influence on their Hap- 
piness in that State, Page 1. 

An Attempt to prove that the Affirmation of the Descent of 
Jesus Christ into Hell — as stated in the Apostles' Creed, 
and asserted in one of the Articles of the Episcopal Church, 
is unfounded in Scripture — and therefore not an Article of 
Belief, according to its own Doctrines, . . Page 34. 

Remarks on Phrenology — in connexion with the Soul ; and of 
the Existence of a Soul in Brutes, . . . Page 50. 



CONSIDERATIONS 

On the Recognition of Departed Friends in another State 
of Existence — and whether, in that State, they have, or 
have not, Cognizance of the Affairs and Transactions of 
this World; together with the probable Inf,uence on their 
Happiness, should such be the Case. 



This subject is so intimately connected with that of the 
state of the soul after death, whether it be in a quiescent or 
active state, that it may not be irrelevant to make a few pre- 
liminary remarks thereon. 

The state of the soul after death, during the intervening pe- 
riod of its separation from the body, and that of the so called 
general resurrection at the day of final judgment, has not 
been the subject of divine revelation. It has hence, at all 
times, been a fruitful theme of inquiry among the learned, 
both laity and clergy, of every denomination; nor was its 
consideration neglected by philosophers of ancient times, even 
anterior to the Christian dispensation. All investigation has, 
however, failed to withdraw the veil that is spread between 
the living and the dead ; all is shrouded in uncertainty; and 
each one must be content to rest for its full elucidation on his 
own experience, at the close of his earthly pilgrimage ! 

Such being the case, it may be asked, why then attempt to 
unfold a mystery on which God has thought it inexpedient to 
enhghten us? The question is probably unanswerable; and 



I shall only say with St. Augustin, as quoted by Calmet, 
when treating on the difficulties attendant on the appearance 
of angels to mortals, as to the nature of the bodies in which 
they were seen ; [Enchiridion, ch. 59,] " Quand on forme 
sur tout cela desquisitions, et que chacun propQse ses conjec- 
tures, ces recherches servent a exercer utilement Fesprit, 
pourvu qu'on demeure dans ies termes d'une recherche mo- 
deste, et que I'on ne se flatte pas sans raison de s9avoir ce que 
I'on ne S9ait pas. Car enfin qu'est-il necessaire d'assurer ou 
de nier, ou de definer ces sortes de choses, qu'on ne pent as- 
surer sans danger, et qu'on pent ignorer sans peche, et sans 
aucun inconvenient." " This," says Calmet, "is not to resolve 
the difficulty, nor to untie the knot that embarrasses us; but 
God has prohibited us from knowing more."* 

Without further apology, I proceed then to remark, that if 
the moment of death is not, in fact, the actual commencement 
of a future active state of existence to each individual, and, in 
so far, the actual and immediate call to the judgment seat of 
God, going on from the first recorded death (Abel) and 
through all past ages, progressing still each day, and thus to 
continue until time shall be no more ; in which respect it may 
be viewed as a general, though progressive judgment : if such 
be not the fact, then the inquiry remains, as to what becomes 

* " It is," says Calmet, preface, p. 6, " It is always shameful to de- 
ceive oneself, and it is hazardous in religion to believe lightly, or 
rashly to deny ; voluntarily to remain in doubt, or to continue with- 
out reason, in superstition and illusion. It is therefore important to 
know how to doubt wisely, and not extend our judgment beyond our 
knowledge." This is perfectly just, and should influence all, in me- 
taphysical disquisitions especially, to argue with complacency and 
moderation, instead of employing an intemperate and sectarian zeal 
to prove that which is often incapable of proof in this world, either by 
reason or by Scripture itself, which is too often pressed into the ser- 
vice of both parties, without a shadow of foundation on either side of 
the disputed point. 



of the soul, when the link is broken that united it to its mortal 
associate]* 

If permitted to form an opinion on a subject so completely 
mysterious, (and which must therefore be altogether hypothe- 
tical) from the few instances of persons recorded in Scripture, 
as having been raised from the dead, the probability would 
seem to be in favour of the sleep or quiescence of the soul, 
rather than of its active independent character immediately 
after death. If separate or independent, and not in a quies- 
cent state, it seems extraordinary that not one of those raised 
from death, has afforded the slightest intimation of what was 
exhibited or seen by them, when the soul was soaring at free- 
dom, during the interval between that event and its reunion 
with its earthly tenement ! That such actual separation be- 
tween the two does occur, is fully demonstrated by the words 
of our Saviour to the penitent thief — " This day thou shalt be 
with me in paradise." It is obvious that his body did not 
disappear, and of consequence it is to the soul alone that 
reference is made, and that it was to be apparently in an ac- 
tive state.f On this point the Bible is silent; and as the indi- 
vidual did not return to life, from him no information could be 
anticipated. Not so, however, with the resuscitated corpse 
when thrown into the prophet's grave, who " revived, and 
stood upon his feet;" 2 Kings xiii. 21: nor in the case of La- 
zarus, after four days' sepulture, and commencing putrefac- 

* '^ It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judg- 
ment;" Heb. ix. 27. If not to follow immediately after death, it 
might reasonably be expected that St, Paul would give some insight 
as to the period. 

t So also Moses (Ex. xiv. 13) says, " for the Egyptians whom ye 
have seen to-day, ye shall see them again no more for ever." Yet in 
verse 30 it is stated, *' Israel saw the Egyptians dead upon the sea 
shore." The souls, therefore, of the Egyptians, are obviously what 
Moses refers to in the 13th verse. 



tion: nor in those of the son of the widow of Sarepta, of Ta- 
bitha, or the young man resuscitated (if actually dead) by St. 
Paul, or the child restored by Elijah i Now, if the souls of 
the above were not quiescent, they apparently must have seen 
and heard, during their temporary separation from the body, 
in their spiritual state, something* deserving of notice, and of 
being described, or at least hinted at, for the edification and 
instruction of friends, when reunited to the body and restored 
to life, and which it might reasonably be presumed they would 
be anxious to communicate to them! Surely the wonders 
witnessed, if the soul was {ree and active, would have been 
the subject of conversation, and of deep consideration, far be- 
yond any other conceivable topic! Now, since nothing of 
this kind is noticed, or even hinted at, it would appear to fa- 
vour the belief of the temporary rest of the soul ; and if so, 
the question is settled. But, on the other hand, it may be 
asked, why should the soul remain thus inactive and quiescent 
(as in the instance of that of Adam) for nearly five thousand 
years? This state of torpidity must resemble a continuous 
and tranquil sleep of similar extent, and of which, when 
awaking, he would be altogether unconscious. This pro- 
longed repose would appear but that of a moment, and no ap- 
parent reason can probably be assigned for a slumber thus 
unconscious of either good or evil! Does not, indeed, the ap- 
pearance of Moses and Elias, at the transfiguration of our Sa- 
viour, altogether prohibit such a view of the case, and nega- 
tive entirely the idea of the quiescent state of the soul, and 
consequently strengthen the opinion that the moment of death 
is, in fact, the instant at which the final judgment of each in- 
dividual commences ? Whichever side of the question how- 

* As St. Paul speaks of being caught up into the third heaven, 
2 Cor. xii. 2 : r^iroo cv^'xvou — into paradise, id. v. 4 : «? rov Tra^dSiitTov 
— whether in the body, or out of the body, he could not tell, but hear- 
ing unspeakable words, &c. 



ever is advocated, difficulties present themselves, which can 
only be settled by self-experience, at that awful moment ! 

It may not be inappropriate to advert here to that expression 
in the so called Apostles' Creed, " I believe in the resurrection 
of the body.''^ This assumed fact of the resurrection of the 
identical body, (as most assuredly is the credence of nine- 
tenths of all who repeat it) is certainly not sustained by what 
St. Paul has written on the subject, 1 Cor. 15 ch. — nor by 
the Nicene creed, which (as well as every part of the New Tes- 
tament) more correctly speaks of the resurrection of the dead. 
Now, as this body is uniformly regarded as material and mor- 
tal, whilst the soul is affirmed to be spiritual and immortal ; it 
must necessarily follow, that if the body is identically raised, 
and becomes thereby a resident of heaven or hell, as well as 
the soul ; it must, by its existence throughout eternity, be in- 
contestably as immortal as the soul itself! Those who accredit 
this, must, we apprehend, give sufficient reasons why St. Paul 
says this vile body is changed, that it becomes a glorified, a 
spiritual body ; — for, although the peculiar character of this 
newly constituted body is left by the Apostle altogether unex- 
plained, yet if it be changed, as he affirms it to be, then it 
obviously cannot be the same body. Nor will it be found, 
that in any particular, St. Paul even remotely sanctions such 
an opinion. 

I am induced here to notice the elaborate and highly inte- 
resting work lately published by the Rev. Dr. G. Bush, entitled 
*' Anastasis ; or the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Body, 
rationally, and scripturally considered." I cannot too highly 
express my opinion of this important volume ; it so completely 
subverts the common belief on the subject of that wonderful 
and eventful change in the destiny of every human being; that 
it cannot fail of producing conviction in the mind of every one 
who is capable of reflection ; and sooner or later must lead to 
a change or modification of that portion of the creed, by which 

a2 



such an opinion has so long been supposed to be justified. 
Theology and the world at large, are deeply indebted to the 
Reverend author of the work, for his patient and persevering 
investigation ; it is a subject of congratulation that it has been 
rendered of general utility through the medium of the press.* 



* I will take occasion in this note to remark, that amongst the 
changes that the above work is calculated to induce, are those of one 
or two of the articles of the Episcopal Church — both of which are 
prominent in the list — and yet seem wanting in scriptural authority. 
It is deserving of consideration in that church, whether, inasmuch as 
the sixth article contains the foundation of every part of its belief, 
which establishes the '* Holy Scriptures" as its rule of faith, — " So 
that whatever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to 
be required of any man that it should be believed," &c. } whether, I 
repeat, it ought not therefore to stand foremost on the list ? it would 
seem to be its most appropriate location. — The two articles to which I 
above refer, are the 3d and 4th — the former, which I shall more fully 
consider at the close of these observations, adverts to our belief, that 
Christ " descended into hell." The latter affirms, that at his resur- 
rection, he " took again his lody, with flesh, bones, and all things ap- 
pertaining to the perfection of man's nature, wherewith he ascended 
into heaven, and there sitteth, until he return to judge all men at the 
last day." 

Is it really proved from scripture that Christ did actually ascend to 
heaven, clothed with flesh, bones, and all things appertaining to the 
perfection of man's nature, and that for a period of more than eighteen 
hundred years, he has thus been located in a human form ? It is much 
to be questioned, if by the most subtle casuistry, this can be made to 
appear ! Jesus Christ was once crucified by the Jev^^s. They were 
mostly ignorant of the crime that they committed, for Christ himself 
says, whilst on the cross, " Father, forgive them, for they know not 
what they do." After his death, an honourable burial was permitted 
to his corpse, and, save the wound in his side, by a Roman soldier, 
no mutilation was inflicted on his corpse. Catholics, more savage 
than the Jews, like cannibals, daily devour him alive, and so have done 
for many centuries ! How many millions of times this unholy act has 
been performed, might perhaps, be made with profit the subject of 
calculation, which, though incapable of absolute precision, would still 



1 



In cursorily treating this subject, (so much more fully and 
elaborately considered in the work alluded to,) I shall venture 
to surmise, that the reformers of our liturgy, pious and excel- 
lent as they were, and deserving of the warmest praise of every 
Protestant; in establishing a set of articles of religion for us, 
were yet but imperfectly acquainted with some important 
branches of medical and physical science, that if better under- 
stood, might greatly have assisted their theological investiga- 
tions. Anatomy, Physiolog)^ and Chemistry were then in their 
infancy; but even of what was known, they appear to have 
been very ignorant, if we may judge of their information from 
various parts of their writings. A superior degree of know- 
ledge at the present period of the world, might be appropriately 
employed to rectify some of their errors, as they rectified many 
of the Romish church ; — and our faith, by their own showing, 
is no more dependant on their opinions, when not in harmony 
with scripture, than they themselves judged to be the case with 
the fathers who preceded them, under similar circumstances ; 
or we never should have witnessed the glorious influence of the 



suffice to show how often they have crucified the Lord of Life, and 
thereby put him to open shame. The Jews were satisfied by once de- 
priving him of life by a cruel, but not uncommon death — but Roman- 
ists devour him alive, flesh, bones and all; they do not sacrifice him, 
but eat him bodily. Both alike act from ignorance, and may our Sa- 
viour pray for these, as he did for the Jews, " Father, forgive them, 
for they know not what they do !" 

But is this body of our Saviour, that is represented as being in 
heaven, (with every thing appertaining to /mware nature) truly proved 
to be the same which appeared on earth, by any part of scripture, or 
is it not rather '' a fond thing vainly invented, and grounded upon no 
warranty of scripture, but rather repugnant to the word of God.-*" 
Although, to be sure, the Papists in number throughout the v/orld, 
about two hundred millions, do at least bring him down from heaven, 
half that number of times daily, to be craunched alive between their 
merciless jaws ! — Credat Judaeus ! 



8 

reformation, but should still have been " in the gall of bitter- 
ness, and in the bonds of iniquity." 

A question occurs here, if the identical body committed to 
the grave, is that which arises to judgment, whether it is to be 
punished or rewarded, for deeds done at an anterior state of 
existence; since it is obvious to every- one, that the particles 
of matter which composed it in the heyday of j^outh, when 
sins of most kinds more generally prevail, are not those that 
constitute it at the age of sixty or seventy.* 

* If all the particles of matter that at the different periods of life 
have constituted a portion of our frame should be raised, (and we may 
ask what greater claim has the last particle deposited over those which 
constituted the first rudiments of the body, though long since removed, 
except on the principle that possession is nine points of the law, I 
cannot well perceive, especially as it may be controverted by another, 
seniores, priores!) then consider what gigantic bodies must appear! 
I have somewhere seen a calculation of the amount eaten during the 
life time of an individual, estimated by an equivalent of such a number 
of sheep; which is made to amount, I think, to four thousand. A 
goodly amount of mortality to invest the soul ! But this is only for a 
longevity of present times. If we go back to the antediluvians, who 
lived ten or twelve times as long; the amount will reach to forty or 
fifty thousand ! Some, however, have supposed, that big or little, 
young or old, all will rise with bodies of about thirty -three years of 
apparent age; being that of our Saviour at the period of his death, 
and in the perfect forms of men and women. St, Augustin, who knew 
as much of this matter as any one, is full authority for this, as well as 
for some further information he affords us, viz : that " Erunt autem 
tunc membra foemiaea; non accoraodata usui veteri, sed decori novo; 
quo non alliciatur aspicientis concupiscentia, quae nulla erit," &c. 

" Our doctors say (Sterne's Koran, p. 118,) that the dead shall rise 
again with bodies. This notion appears to be an article of faith agreea- 
ble rather to the doctrine of a Mahometan priest, than a Christian di- 
vine. It would be unphilosophic to suppose, that flesh and blood shall 
lose their properties after resurrection." — Many anxious inquirers also 
seek to know further, whether those parts that are here deemed orna- 
mental, such as the hair of the head, will rise with the body, inasmuch 
as it will be so very long ; as well as the nails, St. Augustin comforts 



Whatever the sins of old age may be, and for which pu- 
nishment is justly due, surely the justice of a gracious and 
heavenly father, would never condemn the materials of old age, 
^Jiat had never committed the sins which had prevailed in youth. 
Now, is not perpetual change evinced, by the absolute neces- 
sity of our daily food for which we petition " our Father who 
is in heaven ?" If such were not the fact, what necessity would 
there be of this frequent recurrence to food of any kind ? and 
why would not the same particles of matter fully answer every 
intention when we had reached our full complement of growth ? 
But no ! each particle performs its respective duty, and succes- 
sively yields its place to a new one, and is thrown off as effete 
and useless, if not absolutely injurious to the system of which 
it had constituted a part.* 

them by the assurance that every superfluity will be removed, and 
every deficiency supplied. It is surprising that these minute philoso- 
phers did not carry their inquiries into the matter of the dundrifFof the 
hair, and other sordes of the animal economy, all of which once formed 
apart of its substance, and is equally entitled to their respectful con- 
sideration as those they have taken pains to look after. 

The rib of which Eve was formed has puzzled them very greatly ; 
having been first vivified in Adam, he seems to have a prior claim — 
and it became highly important to know to which of the two it will 
appertain in heaven ! If Adam, as its first proprietor, demands it as 
his property, what becomes of Eve ? It is replied, that it was primarily 
ordained for Eve, and not for the perfecting of Adam ; in whom it was 
a mere superfluity, or else its place in him filled up with flesh ! In 
like manner, abortions and monsters, 'tis affirmed, will be rendered 
perfect ! And now, after all this fanciful and ridiculous speculation of 
learned saints and theologians, how will it comport with the direct 
affirmation of the resurrection of the identical body that has rotted in 
the grave ? 

* It appears to me a most extraordinary circumstance that the doc- 
trine of the resurrection of the hod.y, should have ever entered into 
the mind of any one who reads the scripture with due attention, and 
that it should continue even to this period ; when the very next chap- 
ter of Genesis to that which describes the creation of man " of the 



10 

The learned and Reverend Father Dom. Aug. Calmet, has 
left among his writings, one, entitled " Dissertations sur les 
Apparitions des Anges, des Demons and des Esprits," &c. 
Paris, 1746, 12mo. In the 67th, p. 230, and succeeding chap- 
ters, he points out the difficulty of explaining apparitions on 
the hypothesis that souls, angels, &c. are purely spiritual, and 
after giving strong arguments against the materiality of the 
soul, in opposition to Locke, — yet he in a measure admits the 
possibility (as every one must do) under the power of God. 
"A Dieu ne plaise que nous voulions donner des bornes a la 
Toute-Puissance de Dieu," — although he adds that our mind 
sees no proportion between these two things, thought and mat- 
ter ; — admitting that the subject is not known to us by revela- 
tion ; nor is it demonstrated either by the cause or its effects, — 
and he agrees that difficulties environ whichever system is 
adopted. 

Such is the conclusion that all must arrive at — and that 
neither opinion is capable of absolute demonstration, or it 
must long since have been finally settled. Were it a point of 
revelation, then it would be conclusive, and a matter of faith 
alone; but as a metaphysical object, it may admit of specula- 
tion, without calling forth the angry feelings of opposing theo- 
rists, who, without any scruples of Christian charity, condemn 

dust of the ground," describes also his corporeal destruction " till 
thou return unto the ground ; for out of it wast thou taken : for dust 
thou art and unto dust s/ialt thou return." Can aught be more explicit — 
or can any theologian, even if equalling the most subtle of the school- 
men, find here the slightest support for a doctrine so evidently opposed 
to scripture and to true philosophy ! When it is said that Adam was 
made of the dust of the earth, it is not to be taken in its strict and 
literal meaning — but that he was formed from those elemcntarij prin- 
ciples, of which the universe is constituted, and into which the body 
is again resolved after death, through the process of putrefaction; 
thereby escaping into the general mass, to aid in the building up of 
new forms of matter, animal, vegetable and mineral. 



11 

one another to anathema, excommunication and death. Ob= 
loquy and persecution are not the certain characteristics of 
truth; and here it is easily seen that feeble reason can afford 
but little help to harmonize or settle, that which God has not 
thought fit to reveal to man. The deep mystery of the nature 
of the soul cannot be discovered by these contending oppo- 
nents; but after all their vain attempts, must leave it for a 
final settlement in another world, when, should they meet and 
recognise each other, it is probable that they may decide it 
with more harmony than they ever enjoyed in their sublunary 
discussions.* 

To recur, however, to Calmet, he gives at page 411, et seq. 
sundry instances from St. Augustin, from his treatise, "De 
Civitate Dei," of persons "renvoyes au monde," and then 
proceeds as follows : — 

" St. Augustin demande ensuite si les morts ont connois- 
sance de ce qui se passe en cette vie? 11 montre que non: 
parceque Dieu a retire du monde, par example, Josias (2 
Chron. xxxiv. 28) a fin qu'il ne fut pas temoin des maux qui 
devoient arriver a sa nation ; et que nous disons tous les jours, 
qu'un tel est heureux d'etre sorti du monde pour ne pas res- 
sentir les maux qui sont arrives a sa famille, ou a sa patrie." 

It is certain, as experience proves, that much can and has 
been said on both sides of the above question, as asked by St. 
Augustin. Agreeing with him fully in the negation assumed 
by him, I consider it, nevertheless, as incapable of absolute 
proof, as I consider all that has been said or written as to the 
nature of the soul itself. Still, I shall venture to make a few 

* " Is it not an amazing thing (vide Koran, p. 174, ascribed to 
Sterne) that men shall attempt to investigate the mystery of the re- 
demption, when, at the same time that it is propounded to us as an 
article of faith solely, we are told that the very angels have desired 
to pry into it in vain?" Will not this remark as aptly apply to the 
never-ending disputes as to the nature and character of the soul? 



12 

remarks on the subject, since it has a strong bearing on the 
views we may entertain as to the felicity which the good may 
be presumed to enjoy in a future state! 

I must here remark, that although persuaded of the truth of 
the opinion given by this great man on the subject under con- 
sideration, that it is reported of him, that he " said he believed 
some things, because they were absurd and impossible" 
(Sterne's Koran, p. 81): and that this is an undoubted trait 
in his character, will be best exhibited from his own autho- 
rity,* coupled with that of his attendant presbyters, if, indeed, 
a more obnoxious term could not be appropriately applied to 
the information to which he has ventured to give publicity. 

A curious work printed at Leipsic in 1744, entitled " His- 
toria Crypto-Socinismi, Altorfina3 quondam Academise infesti, 
Arcana," by G. G. Zeltnerus, has a part of it occupied, under 
the head of " Supplementa et Documenta," and divided into 
several chapters, the eighth of which is headed, "Confessio 
Fidei Joachimi Peuschelii," &c., consisting of his answers to 
twelve questions respecting sundry points of religion. One of 
those questions, p. 998, is — "An utraque symbola, Nicenum 
et Athanasii, sacris litteris in omnibus sint conformia?" The 
reply follows, accompanied by notes and references, many in- 
teresting, and bearing* more or less on different particulars of 
those creeds, some not undeserving of attention. The latter 

* In his " Sermones ad Fratres in Eremo," is one (at p. 17, Sermo 
37th, Paris ed. of 1516, black letter) in which he says, '^Ecce ego jam 
Episcopus Hipponensis eram, et cum quibusdam servis Christi ad 
^thiopiam perrexi, ut eis sanctum Christi Evangelium praedicarem ; 
et videmus ibi multos homines et mulieres, capita non habentes! sed 
oculos grossos jixos in pectore! Csetera membra sequalia nobis ha- 
bentes." And a few lines further on he adds, ^^ Videmus et in infe- 
rioribus partibus ^thiopiae, homines unum oculum tantum in fronte 
habentes." Who can pretend to harbour a doubt in his mind of so 
wonderful a fact, when given under the immediate sanction of the 
greatest saint in the Romish church ! 



13 

creed has happily been expunged from the Liturgy of the 
American Episcopal Church, yet it still deforms that of the 
parent church of England!* 

At p. 1032 are the following questions: — 

" An in Christo Domino nostro jam in statu glorise, vera sit 
humanitas, secundum quam veram carnem et sanguinem (Ro- 
manists are speaking) quse in csena participamus, habeat? 
Item: Annon Photinianum argumentum, caro et sanguis reg- 
num Dei non possidebunt. Ergo, quia Christus sit jam in 
regno Dei, eum non habere carnem et sanguinem: sit purum 
sophisma, et quid respondendum?" 

Peuschelius replies, taking, as his text, v. 12, 13, of 6th 
chapter of St. Paul's 2d Epistle to the Corinthians — " Meats 
for the belly, and the belly for meats ; but God shall destroy 
both it and them." The respondent lays great stress on 
"God shall destroy both it and them," and then pertinently 
asks, " Quomodo vero hoc convenit cum eo, quod vulgo aiunt, 
idem numero corpus cum omnibus suis membris resurrectu- 
rum? An datur corpus absque ventre?" This, by the pious 
examiners, is called " Ineptiee," because the apostle speaks not 
alone of the belly, but of its operations on the food, which will 
not take place in another life, &.c. The respondent, no way 

* In the Analytical Review (London, 1789, 3d Vol. p. 288) are some 
good remarks upon the subject of a reform of the Liturgy, in which 
reference is made to the reform of that of the American Episcopal 
Church, and at p. 294, that Liturgy, with its revision is briefly no- 
ticed, and it is there stated, that " The restoration of the Athanasian 
creed was also proposed to that Convention (that at Delaware in 
1786) at the instance of the letter from the English archbishops, but 
was rejected. And, indeed, the compliance of the Convention in the 
other instances, (respecting the descent of Christ into hell in the 
Apostle's creed, &c,, which had heen omitted, but subsequently re- 
stored) was the price to be paid for the consecration of their bishops 
in England; but the conditions of the purchase reflect no honour 
upon either of the contracting parties !" 

B 



14 

daunted, proceeds thus : "Vel, an venter, et eve, quarum re- 
ceptaculum est, partes, velut cor, pulmo, jecur, lien, sto- 
machus, &c., non sunt de corporis essentia, vel ejus partes 
aut essentiales, aut integrales? Inio monstrum potiiis corporis 
humani, vel corpus phantasticum et marcioniticum, quam ve- 
rum corpus censendum, quod ventre caret. Et dempto ac 
abolito ventre, quid reliquis membris fiet/ an et ilia abolebun- 
tur? Sic sane persuasum mihi habeo. Aut, si manebunt, 
quomodo ilia inter se coboerebunt et jungentur? Mirabilis 
sane homo, qui manibus, pedibus, auribus, oculis, capite, &;c., 
praeditus, ventre tamen caret," — Much more is argued to 
the same effect, with observations on St. Paul's exposition of 
the modification of the body in the resurrection, not devoid of 
interest in considering this important doctrine, which we are 
taught in infancy, and continue up to the latest period of life 
to repeat it like parrots, without duly reflecting on its intrinsic 
nature.* 

If those who depart this life may be supposed to have any 
further acquaintance with what passes in the world, we should 
reasonably imagine, that numerous instances of depravity, to- 
gether with the generally associated misery of their immediate 
friends and relatives left behind them, being perpetually pre- 
sented to their observation, would (if their feelings and aflec- 
tions at all resemble those they here possessed) inevitably tend 
to diminish, if not to extinguish, the felicity that we usually 
attach to their heavenly existence ! Let each one represent to 
himself the parents of a large family (his own for instance), 
removed by death, and participating in the blissful enjoyments 



* If the resurrection body is a spiritual and glorified one, as St. 
Paul affirms, the organs of the material body, as here existing, cannot 
come into operation, and, consequently, recognition must be founded 
on principles of a very different character from those which are re- 
quired in this world. 



15 

of heaven. Imagine, now, those parents looking from their 
blest abode, and tracing, day by day, the footsteps of their 
beloved offspring in the paths of vice, and conscious of their 
complete secession from virtue; and assured thereby of not 
being able to welcome them, and reunite with them in those 
mansions of eternal happiness ! But could those parents in- 
deed feel happiness, even within the precincts of paradise ? — 
Let each one answer: could aught but unutterable anguish 
be their portion? 

Now can we for an instant accredit that the felicity of hea- 
ven is subjected to such alloy! an alloy incompatible with 
every idea the mind can form to itself: it seems impossible, 
incongruous, and inconsistent with the doctrine taught us by 
the Scriptures! Either, then, the feelings must differ, and be 
entirely changed from those experienced on earth; all me- 
mory of sublunary things must be obliterated; or all know- 
ledge of what is passing upon earth must be precluded. This 
last supposition involves the overthrow of every idea of inter- 
course with the events of our globe, either of a general or of a 
partial nature! 

I perceive but one way to reconcile this apparent anomaly, 
and obviate the dilemma which appears to attach to either side 
of the question, or which may afford a probable explanation of 
what is in itself so obscure and mysterious. 

In the creation of every individual, no doubt exists, that, 
whatever be its nature, an immortaP tenant is also created, 

* We may be here permitted to observe, that, independently of the 
will of its Almighty architect, the soul is (necessarily) neither immor- 
tal nor eternal. The soul of the embryo or infant in utero, apparently 
must, as emanating from God, be on an equality with that of the most 
gifted and accomplished adult; but the organs by which, or through 
which its faculties can alone be fully developed, being as yet imper- 
fect or unformed, and only reaching perfection after a period of many 
years, its faculties can show themselves only in the ratio in which the 



16 

pari-passu, to occupy the body whilst vitality exists! God 
has, in his wisdom, thought proper to withhold from us all 
knowledge of its character and composition ; and beyond the 
assurance of its continued existence we know nothing, when 
its earthly associate has mouldered into dust, and through the 
agency of chemical laws been decomposed into its primitive 
elements, and passed into other forms of matter, to subserve 
still further the operations of the animal, vegetable, or mineral 
kingdom! Those particles of matter which constituted the 
persons of our first parents, have thus continued to float along 
the tide of time, and still continue to exist under diversified 
forms, claiming thereby affinity to all, yet not admitting of the 
absolute control of any I In evidence that the Great Being, 
who formed the soul for immortality, can, at his pleasure, 
prove that it is not so, necessarily, our gracious Saviour 
warns us "to fear him who can destroy both soul and body 
in hell." Whatever the expression may absolutely indicate, 
yet being coupled with the body, it would seem to apply to 
something of a material character, though it need not be con- 
sidered as of any of the elementary matter of our globe ; the 
destruction of the body, as material, we can comprehend, by 
annihilation or otherwise ; but what can we conceive of the 
destruction of immateriality? 

Be all this as it may, we are led to believe, that the soul, 
clothed in a spiritual and glorified body, altogether distinct 
from its former associate, is the only part of man that finds a 

improvement of the organs takes place. " When I was a child," says 
St, Paul, '' I spake as a child, &c., but when I became a man, I put 
away childish things." Even our Saviour is said to have " increased 
in wisdom and stature," &c. On the same principles we may rea- 
sonably conjecture that the soul of the idiot or of the insane, is, quo 
ad the soul, perfect; but its actions being developed through the me- 
dium of imperfect or diseased organization, those actions will deviate 
in a similar ratio from the perfect and proper standard. 



17 

passage to the region of heaven ! Now, when thus unshackled 
by the fetters of mortality, and it returns to its Creator, it 
may not unreasonably be concluded, that being no longer con- 
trolled by flesh and blood, this divine emanation loses its former 
feelings and impressions, arising from its previous necessary 
dependence on corporeal organs of sense for all its former in- 
tercourse with the material world, but which now no longer 
appertain to it in its new and separate state of being ! 

If the usual means of communication (here essential to our 
welfare) are cut off, it follows that some new measure must be 
provided for its spiritual state, whether that be limited to heaven 
or extended to the earth, since that which previously existed, 
is now, as though it had never been ! The spirits of the just 
made perfect, associated together in one blessed community, 
and constituting one great and extensive family of love in 
heaven,* must feel new impulses and trains of impressions, 
enlarged and expanded as the place they inhabit ; forming there 
a different state of society from that limited connexion which 
bound them on earth !f Their feelings are no longer earthly. 
With this world having no longer any concern, they must have 
attained celestial feelings, for how can it be imagined that 

* The views of the society of heaven, as described by Swedenborg, 
although they may be considered as highly fanciful, are nevertheless 
extremely beautiful. 

t The extensive circle of each one's connexions and associations in 
this worl'^, are pretty accurately defined by Sterne in the 7th ch. of 
Tristram Shandy, when speaking of the " notable good old body of a 
midwife" — " who had acquired, in her way, no small degree of repU' 
tation in the world," he adds ^' by the word world, need I in this place 
inform your worship that I would be understood to mean no more of 
it, than a small circle described upon the circle of the great world, of 
four English miles diameter, or thereabouts, of which the cottage 
where the good old woman lived is supposed to be the centre." And 
such is the magnitude of the world of the greater proportion of the 
human race ! 

e2 . 



18 

earthly cares and thoughts can predominate, when all the ma- 
terial organs of the body ceased their functions at the cessa- 
tion of vitality, and now are mouldering in the grave? 

Should these blessed spirits then be permitted to revisit the 
earth, their feelings must be of a general, not of a limited or 
partial character. Were it otherwise, and former feelings still 
predominate, existence even in heaven would, according to our 
present conception, apparently be accompanied with all those 
partial attachments and regards, that constitute on earth, the 
great bond of consanguinity, and form the most important 
principle of domestic love and friendship ! But would not the 
happiness of heaven be thereby frustrated ? Would not simi- 
lar cliques and coteries of families, of friends, and family con- 
nexions, be equally there constituted under the feelings of 
mortality? and would not, therefore, feuds and friendships ne- 
cessarily ensue as on earth, to the diminution or to a total ex- 
tinction of that celestial affection, which it may be presumed 
was the intention of a gracious Being, their common parent, for 
the happiness of all ? However it may here be requisite to 
possess both love and friendship for our immediate families and 
relations ; a necessity obviously essential to this state of exist- 
ence, and therefore so wisely ordained by God himself for 
mutual comfort and support amidst the trials of this life ; it 
seems well calculated to subvert the happiness of heaven ! 
We are, therefore, irresistibly led to the conclusion, that a like 
necessity no longer existing after death, a new train of feelings 
is awakened, under the spiritual influence of the disembodied 
being ! Partial, parental, filial and consanguineous, are ob- 
literated with the obliteration of the corporeal organization to 
which they were essential, and yield to the influence of general 
love and universal affection. Should we then happily attain 
those blessed mansions, is it not both probable and reasonable, 
that we shall there, no longer recognise each other as we do 
at present, in the various relations of parent, husband, wife oy 



19 

child, or other family or civil connexion ? but that we shall all 
meet as one great family, in which is lost the memory of those 
more limited and circumscribed ties of earthly affection 1 Has 
not our Saviour taught us that in heaven, there is neither mar- 
riage nor giving in marriage ? and may this not be regarded 
justly, as an indirect acknowledgment of the truth of the above 
assumed position ? Of what utility indeed could marriage be 
in heaven 1 Of its absolute necessity on earth, no one can 
have a doubt, except a Romish Priest !* Let us for an instant 
admit that the feehnsfs and affections of this mortal state are 
carried into heaven; and what would be the result? Here, 
during the sho'rt period of fifty or one hundred years, a pe- 
riod less than a speck in the lengthened chain of- never ceasing 
ages ; — here, even in the best regulated and most affectionate 
families, how frequent are the evidences of temporary forget- 
fulness of love and sympathy, in the little bickerings and dis- 
putes on mere trifling subjects of different opinions, imagined 
affronts, or pecuniary matters ! How would these comport 
with the happiness anticipated of a never-ending eternity ? But 
must not such result from mortal feelings — and what becomes 
of heaven ? 

Repugnant as at first sight such views may prove to mun- 
dane ideas, reflection will probably reconcile them to the mind, 
and convince it that happiness in heaven must prove imper- 
fect, if shackled by the memory of past events, and worldly 
transactions of persons and things. Family, religious, and 
national associations would continue to maintain their limited 
and sectarian affections and hatred, to the exclusion of that 
expansive benevolence which kindred spirits can alone enjoy. 

* And why ? Because he can revel in the delights of concupiscence, 
unshackled by the ties and responsibilities of parental affinity. See on 
the subject of priestly celibacy, a small but excellent treatise by the 
Right Rev. Diogo Antonio Feijo, of Brazil, " On the Necessity of 
Abolishing a Constrained Clerical Celibacy," &c. 



20 

Is this indeed an inconsistent view of the subject under con- 
sideration, when we renfiember, (what all admit) that we have 
one common origin in Adam ; and are, therefore, merely indi- 
vidual, though distant links of one great chain proceeding from 
him, and ending only with the termination of the human 
family ! Brethren we are in fact, both spiritually and cor- 
poreally, and hence the great command, that we should love 
each other as ourselves — which, although of the utmost diffi- 
culty in this Ufe, may readily be imagined to be the case in 
heaven, if free from the shackles of this mortal state ! The 
'former, constituted by our souls, all alike emanating from a 
benevolent and heavenly parent ; the latter, deriving its source 
from the earthly father of the whole human race. The chain 
indeed is rusty, even from its commencement ! The fall of 
Adam, the murder of Abel, speedily tarnished its original 
lustre, and wars, persecutions, and all the varied ills which 
spring from the unrestrained passions of man, have continued 
to disfigure it to the present day! What a most felicitous 
progeny in corporeal identity to meet in heaven ! 

I come then to the conclusion, that by the above, or by some 
analogous view, we can alone, I think, explain, how heavenly 
spirits, if permitted to investigate and watch over the affairs of 
man, may yet continue happy, and be altogether insensible to 
the misery that would otherwise await them, under the influ- 
ence of memory of passed and passing events ! Whether my 
readers shall arrive at the same conclusion, I cannot prophesy ; 
but I will merely notice in addition for their consideration, 
that it is perfectly obvious, we all care as little here for our 
predecessors of the fourth, fifth and sixth generation, and so 
on, counting back to Adam, as we do for those who are to 
succeed us to the end of the world. Beyond the few dear ob- 
jects of afl^ection, immediately known to us, all are relatively 
strangers; and each generation, looking either backwards or 
forwards, must have ties of consanguinity equally as powerful 



21 

as our own ; hence, unless our recognition, &c. in another world 
is general and unconfined, consider for a moment what a sin 
gular state of society would be that of heaven ! Each genera^ 
tion looking to two or three links of immediate connexion only 
we must quickly be thrown into a state of inextricable con 
fusion, to unravel which, the Gordian knot, in comparison 
would be a trifle !* 

* I may help this confusion by the following statements cut out of 
newspapers, and which having a slight connexion with the subject un- 
der consideration, will at least amuse, if they do not instruct: of the 
calculations as to correctness, I have never undertaken to go through 
them. The writer of one of them signs himself E. J. Pierce. 

Population of the World. — According to M'Gregor, the popu- 
lation of the world is 812,553,712, which is divided by Bell as follows: 
Whites, .... 440,000,000 

Copper coloured, - - - 15,000,000 

Mulattoes, .... 230,000,000 

Blacks, , . . . 120,000,000 

Hassell deemed the world's population to be 936,461,000, possessing 
the following religions : 

Christians, , . - , 252,600,000 

Jews, .... 5,000,000 

Mahometans, .... 120,105,000 

Brahminists, - - - - 140,000,000 

Buddists, .... 313,977,000 

All others, .... 134,490,000 

The Christian World : — 

Catholics, - . - - 137,000,000 

Protestants, . , - . 65,000,000 

Greek Church, &c., - - - 50,000,000 

The population of Europe is estimated by Malte Brun at 214,000,000 
souls. Asia is put down by Balbi at 413,844,300. 

Life and Death. — The population of the earth is estimated at one 
thousand millions, and a generation lasts thirty-three years. There- 
fore, in thirty-three years the 1,000,000,000 must all die! Conse- 
quently, the number of deaths will be, by approximation : — Each 
year, 30,000,000 ; each day, 82,101 ; each hour, 3,421 ; each minute, 
57 J each second, nearly 1. If, on the other hand, as has been calcu- 



22 

I might here suggest for consultation on the subject of mu- 
tual recognition in another world, " Polwhele's Discourses on 
Different Subjects." London, 1788. In his 10th discourse, 
after giving the views of a future state from philosophy and 
Christianity, he infers the certainty of mutual recognition, 
from a consciousness of our identity ; from the solicitude of 
the departed for the welfare of survivors, as deduced from La- 

lated, the number of births is to that of deaths as twelve to ten, there 
will be born each year, 30,000,000; each day, 98,896: each hour, 
4,098; each minute, 68; each second, over 1. 

LEARNING. 

" One of my great grandfathers was a Marblehead fisherman, and all 
my relations are fond of the occupation; we throw out our opinions, 
that are little worth, and sometimes draw up from the sea of literature 
the opinion of some big fish. I do not know the occupations of all my 
great grandfathers, and great great grandfathers, and great great great 
grandfathers, &c. I must have had a great many of them. Once on 
a long voyage 1 went back to the twentieth generation, and found that 
I must have had about 1,058,576 within the last seven centuries, and 
agreeably to such data, as Sir Isaac Newton used to ripen his chro- 
nological conclusions, the number of my great and great great and 
great great great grandfathers, &c., since the creation, (allowing it the 
shortest date, that the computations of the most learned divines will 
admit,) say 5836 years or 58 centuries 36 years, or 175 ages, the whole 
number of my great great great grandfathers, must have been 
47,890,485,652,059,026,823,698,344,598,447,161,988,085,597,568,237,568 
or forty-seven thousand eight hundred and ninety octillions, four hun- 
dred and eighty-five thousand six hundred and fifty-two septillions, 
fifty-nine thousand and twenty-six sextillions, eight hundred and 
twenty-three thousand six hundred and ninety-eight quintillions, three 
hundred and forty four thousand five hundred and ninety-eight quad- 
rillions, four hundred and forty-seven thousand one hundred and sixty- 
one trillions, nine hundred and eighty-eight thousand and eighty-five 
billions, five hundred and ninety-seven thousand five hundred and sixty- 
eight millions, two hundred and thirty-seven thousand five hundred 
and sixty-eight great grandfathers — a greater enumeration than will be 
intelligible to all of the present generation : what trouble there must 
have been in the world just to bring in a poor old fisherman's grandson!" 



23 

zarus and the rich man ;* from the pleasure promised in the 
society of Abraham and the prophets, &c. ; from the declara- 
tion of Jesus Christ to the penitent thief; from Christ being 
known to the apostles when transfigured ;f and from the im- 
plication in St. Paul's declaration, that " they who sleep in 
Jesus, God will bring with him." The whole of this discourse 
appears, by the arguments employed, to be a mere " petitio 
principii" — and all the inferences deduced from merely mortal 
feehngs and impressions, unsubstantiated by any of the posi- 
tions he assumes, as is well confirmed by the review of the 
work in the Anal. Rev. v. 5. 1790, p. 69. 

A small treatise appeared in 1838, in this city, entitled, 
" The Recognition of Friends in another World," of which 
several editions have since been given to the public. Its in- 
tention was to soothe the sorrows of the bereaved, and to mul- 
tiply the joys of the happy. Its benevolent purport is unques- 
tionable, and it required only the garb of certainty, and a solid 
foundation, to render it in all respects of the deepest interest. 
Its arguments, &c., are, however, apparently derived from 
Polwhele; at least they are, like his, founded on supposition, 
but rendered attractive by an address to the feelings, rather 
than to the understanding, in the hour of deep affliction. As 
the views I have ventured to propose are in direct opposition 
to those contended for in the treatise mentioned, it becomes a 
duty to ask those who have perused it with care, and with 



* This beautiful history, if not intended for an allegorical allusion 
alone, seems, indeed, to present such an uncommon and unanticipated 
instance of Christian charity and benevolence in a wretched outcast 
from heaven, and an inmate of the gulf of endless wo, that it would 
almost tempt us to believe that his faith might have led to his for- 
giveness, as was the case with the penitent thief. 

f This could hardly be called a case of re-cognition, since it would 
seem they equally knew both Moses and Elias, whom they never be- 
fore had seen. 



24 

minds uncontrolled by personal affliction, what it proves? I 
think the reply must be, absolutely nothing of all it professes ! 
All that is advanced is bare supposition, devoid of "philoso- 
phical acumen, or logical precision," as I shall attempt to de- 
monstrate. 

In the preface we are told, that " the design is to show the 
consonance of this doctrine with reason and Scripture," &c., 
so as to enable all "to give a reason of the hope that is in 
them." Unquestionably this is an important desideratum, but 
one, we fear, the treatise in question will never enable us to 
perform. It "does not pretend to have brought forward all 
the passages of Scripture which throw light upon this subject. 
If it has succeeded in making it appear that the belief of this 
doctrine is reasonable [it ought to be, if true!] in itself, and 
that the word of God allows us to indulge in it, the end will 
be attained." — Most assuredly; but should it be unfounded 
and erroneous, whc^t then ? 

At p. 14, we are told, that "of the precise nature of the 
happiness of the blessed, &c., we know very little; nor, "with 
our limited faculties, could we probably comprehend them." 
Admitting this to be the case, why thus venture to place 
amongst these incomprehensible mysteries of a future state, 
the insignificant enjoyment of this mutable existence, derived 
from our personal recognition of friends here, when each day's 
experience proves that enjoyment to be clouded by family 
feuds, by interruption of friendship, and even of relationship, 
from motives of self-interest, of politics, and not unfrequently 
of religion itself, by which the most bitter enmity is awa- 
kened? With what happy associations of past feelings must 
not such friends and relatives meet each other in another 
world, if those feelings are of mortal mould ! What a blessing 
must their recognition prove, should they chance to meet in 
heaven ! 

P. 15. — "Subjects which Scripture has carefully concealed 



25 

are not to he speculated on." Why, then, has the author ven- 
tured to indulge in those that form the basis of his book? 
Surely it will not be maintained that they are exempt from 
that concealment! The "blessedness of the dead" would 
rest on slender grounds, if dependent on a train of feelings 
similar to those which actuate us here below : and the quota- 
tion (Luke XX. 35, 36) intended to afford "the clearest and 
most satisfactory account of the happiness of the redeemed," 
that they " neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are 
equal to angels," &c., seems to render the affirmed recog- 
nition of husband and wife extremely problematical, if, indeed, 
it be not an explicit denial of it! How would such recognition 
accord with those blissful feelings in the case of the loving 
partner of seven successive husbands, or hundreds of a similar 
character? To which of them, on meeting that numerous 
phalanx, would she fly and cleave to, as bone of her bone? or 
would she become the joint stock of seven partners ? U all 
are equal to the angels, their thoughts and feelings must have 
changed from mortal to those of an heavenly and angelic 
type ; and if so, they would be universal ; and divided or par- 
tial affections could not there predominate. 

P. 18. — "Never again will they be called upon to take a 
final leave," &c. If they do meet and recognise each other 
in the other world, the leave here taken obviously cannot be 
called ^?za?. "We feel that theirs must be indeed a blissful 
state, who are conscious that they can never be separated 
from those they love,''^ &c. Now if this be true, how can we 
reconcile this feeling of affection with its direct opposite of in- 
tense affliction, in the inevitable remembrance (for if memory 
holds as to the one, so must it likewise to the other) of those 
dear and beloved friends and relatives, who, being blotted out, 
are not to be found within the precincts of heaven? Between 
them and those there is a great gulf! and if they can cast 
their view athwart that gulf, and see those friends "afar off," 



26 

whilst they are securely placed in Abraham's bosom, witness* 
ing thus their torments and despair; is such recognition 
adapted, according to mortal feelings, to heighten the ecstatic 
joys which we calculate on in heaven? Though accounted 
unworthy, yet they must still be remembered, or memory 
both of good and bad must be equally obliterated. If, then, 
it does exist, with mortal feelings still prevailing, surely the 
conviction of the sufferings of their friends must continue 
throughout eternity, and prove an equal source of unmitigated 
grief! But we are told that sighing and sorrow have no place 
in heaven, and that all tears shall be wiped from every eye. 
These inconsistencies are not reconciled in the treatise ad- 
verted to. 

P. 21. — " Permitted to enjoy the society of an innumerable 
company of angels," &c. Who are these? Those so created 
ab initio, or those so constituted of the spirits of the just made 
perfect? In either case, such enjoyment must be general, not 
particular. Here would have been the most appropriate place 
to have fully described, and proved, if possible, the personal 
joys of specific relationship from earthly reminiscences and 
associations on mutual recognition! And, as further sustained 
in p. 22, that " such is the society, and such the blessedness 
of the saints in light." Now we seriously ask, where, in all 
that is advanced in the treatise, is to be found the slightest 
proof, or even a reasonable idea, of the recognition, as such, 
of earthly friends and relatives? Happly, our recognition is 
not to be limited by the petty, partial notions of present and 
terrestrial speculation. We shall, no doubt, recognise Abra- 
ham, Adam, and every one of his descendants, whenever met 
with, and enjoy the treasures of their information of past 
events and times, on which history has been silent or misled 
us. We shall, in like manner, recognise our own immediate 
friends and relatives, if there, but not as we now know them ! 
They, and all the hosts of heaven, will love, and be beloved, 



27 

as kindred spirits. No longer under the fetters of mortality, 
all mundane affections, all the narrow, contracted feelings of 
mere human nature, cease; whilst love and peace, and uni- 
versal happiness, pervade the united society of the children of 
one great, merciful, and beneficent Parent. 

In the second chapter of the work, the recognition of saints 
is taken up, in which we find it proposed, whether " we shall 
recognise among them those whom we knew and loved on 
earth," and " if so, will those feelings of affection which linked 
us together here, be renewed and perpetuated in heaven ?" 
Now this, as the title of the book evinces, constitutes the pith 
of the whole inquiry, and the point to be (not yet) proved, in 
order to be enabled to afford a reason of our hope, &c. So 
much has already been said in reply to it, that further remark 
would have been omitted, but that in answer to the above 
question, the author, p. 25, says, "that it is a natural inquiry, 
and if logical accuracy was aimed at, we should consider sepa- 
rately, 1. Whether the souls of the righteous in their disem- 
bodied state, and immediately after death, will know each 
other, or 2, Whether, this recognition {if it occurs at all) 
takes place only after the reunion of the soul and hocly at the 
resurrection day, — and 3. Whether, i/'such knowledge exists, 
the attachments which bind us here, will be continued here- 
after," It may surely, with strict propriety, be here demanded, 
whether these were not the points that were to be proved? and 
why, with three such important links in the chain that was to 
lead to the conviction of the certainty of the main object of 
inquiry, they are thus passed over, and not " considered sepa- 
rately, with all logical accuracy V It seems indeed a natu- 
ral inquiry, fully arising from the very point that was to be 
proved, and from which the chief source of consolation was to 
be derived by the bereaved, for whom the work was expressly 
written. It may be feared, however, that such logical accu- 
racy might not readily aid the superstructure, but rather tend 



28 

to even undermine the foundation itself, and thereby show its 
weakness. It is, in fact, admitted, p. 26, that " it does not 
necessarily follow, that the peculiar ties which bind us here, 
will be perpetuated hereafter." We erroneously imagined, 
that this was the very thing contended for, as the chief source 
of comfort to those, whose pilgrimage on earth had been ren- 
dered painful by the bereavement of some beloved object ! for 
if otherwise, the mere recognition would seem to be of a very 
secondary consideration ; and the proposition above advanced 
appears to put at rest the chief purport of the whole investi- 
gation ; — accordingly, the writer seems entirely undetermined 
which side of the question to assume ; for he immediately adds, 
that " in like manner, if it he proved, that friends will recog- 
nise each other ijp their glorijied bodies, it does not folloio as 
a consequence, that pure disembodied spirits will possess such 
a recognition." May we be allowed to ask what is that pre- 
sumed difference between a disembodied spirit which may not 
possess recognition, and that of a glorified body that may, if 
proved? Now all these several and separate propositions, to 
be strictly accurate, ought (we are told) to be distinctly proved, 
and in this, we most heartily agree, for this was the essence of 
the whole work. But no ; it is shortly after stated, that " this 
would be foreign to our present purpose." Indeed ! then I have 
mistaken altogether the drift of the author. I considered it of 
the first importance that such proof should be afforded of the 
position laid down, as being essentially requisite to enable the 
reader " to give a reason for the hope that is in him." It is 
added, however, as a reason for omitting this, that " it would 
be neither interesting nor instructive to our readers to enter 
into all the niceties of the argument." This is truly extraor- 
dinary ! Surely the author must think but lightly of his 
readers, if he deems them incapable of enjoying a metaphysi- 
cal treat on a most interesting topic; and that, therefore, they 
ought to be satisfied with a simple assertion, a mere ipse dixit; 



29 

or a *'stat pro ratione voluntas!" In fact, it is by this slighted 
measure alone, that a reader could possibly arrive at a just 
conclusion, and say with truth, that his reason was fully 
satisfied.* 

In reviewing " the whole subject as one and indivisible, and 
in attempting to show that departed spirits, whether in the body, 
or out of the body, will know each other, and that the pure and 
holy affections of love and friendship which subsist now, will 
subsist for ever," I feel constrained to say, that assertions are 
mistaken for proof, and weak analogies for direct truths. To 
confirm this, I shall merely take notice of the chain, by which 
the whole is linked together, by pointing to the words through 
which the connexion may be considered as maintained. 

P. 27. — " This doctrine appears to be perfectly consonant to 
reason, for unless,^^ &c. 

P. 28.— '"The veracity of Him who cannot lie, seems to 
stand pledged." 

P. 28, 29. — " Surely it will give us more exalted views," — 
"but to know this, it seems necessary^'' — " and if we are per- 
mitted to know any of the saints in hght, we see (verily, through 
a glass, darkly,) no reason why we may not know them all." 
" We may reasonably suppose that," " it must certainly be," — 
" This could not he unless there was a mutual recognition," 
&c. ^'•It is therefore in accordance with the soundest prin- 
ciples of reason to suppose,^'' &c. — together with much of the 
same character. 

Now, in all these gratuitous suppositions, not a shadow of 
proof appears, such as the reader had been led to imagine 
would be presented to his eager expectations ; and from which 



*The reader is requested "to turn to the words of the Rev. John 
Newton, at page 27 of the treatise under consideration, as introduced 
from Hannah More — and judge how far they are applicable to the lody 
as here existing, and as in its affirmed resurrection identically ! 

c2 



I 



30 

he had pleased himself to be qualified to give a satisfactory 
reason for his hope in the premises. 

At p. 30. — At last comes the great stumbling block to all 
the foregoing pleasing anticipations of heavenly recognition ! 
" But one considerable objection to this doctrine." Yes truly — 
fatal to it ; and it would be no objection, if, as a matter of 
faith, it could be shown to be scriptural doctrine, and not the 
pleasing fiction of imperfect reason. The objection stated, is 
" the consciousness that some of our relations and friends being 
absent, must be in a state of suffering and woe." Surely such 
consciousness would be (not merely "at first sight" as is stated, 
but in perpeiuo) " an insuperable obstacle to the persuasion that 
the blessed will recognise each other after death." Now, how 
is this most important part of the subject under consideration 
disposed of? Not by solid proof from revelation, by which 
the pro or con might be substantially settled; but by a sophis- 
tical proposition, which may possibly be regarded as proving 
more against than for it. " A moment's reflection will con- 
vince us that this objection, if it have any weight, (has it 
none?) will apply with equal force to our knowing, as we cer- 
tainly must know, that any part of the human family is con- 
demned to eternal punishment," &c. Quere ? does the writer 
suppose that such knowledge on the part of celestial beings 
will tend to diminish their affliction on behalf of their own 
unfortunate relatives?* We then have given to us a statement 

*With how much comparative indifference do we read in the daily 
papers, of massacres — of death from poison — assassination — from fires, 
from accidents by steam or crushing by rail-road cars, &c., so long as 
they do not personally affect us or our near relations! A shudder, a 
moment of mental syrapath}^, and for the most part, all is forgotten I 
Nay, how quickly are our dearest and nearest friends consigned to 
oblivion, when the first burst of affliction has passed by, after seeing 
their remains deposited in the tomb. Surely, with such apathy here, 
recognition in another world, can, to the majority of the human race, 
be a matter of but triflinof consideration ! 



i 



31 

of the " great day of final account," in which " we shall all 
behold a lasting separation made between the righteous and the 
wicked," and " yet it cannot be supposed, that the condemna- 
tion of the latter, will in the least degree, (alas ! for recog- 
nition and reminiscence !) disturb the felicity of the former !" 
" Such a supposition would be irreconcilable with the perfec- 
tion of the heavenly bliss," &c. No doubt it would — and this 
leads us cheerfully to adopt the views suggested, of the total 
absence of recognition conformably to our earthly conceptions 
of friendship and affection, and that in heaven, heavenly feel- 
ings alone exist.* 

The train of suppositions are thus continued at p. 31, et 
seq. — 

" We cannot for a moment thinh.^^ " And why may it not 
be the same." " If requisite for," &c. " We may humbly 
presume,'''' &c. " The probability is," &c. " We may easily 
conceive, that it will add much to the happiness of the blessed, 
to meet many of their friends in heaven ; whilst the reflection 
that some whom they loved on earth, are not there, will not 
be permitted to mar their felicity," &c. &c. 

Here, then, we find the Gordian knot completely cut 

^ The reader is here referred to a short review of a Sermon by J. J. 
Rye, A. B., in the Analyt. Review, 1792 — vol. ii, p. 196 — entitled 
'■' Personal Remembrance amongst the Joys of the other World," &c. 

'' The consolatory doctrine of this discourse is treated by the preacher 
in a -popular icay, more adapted perhaps to impress the imagination 
with pleasing ideas, than to convey entire conviction to the under- 
standing. At least we must think, that his argument receives little 
additional force, from the reference which he makes to Homer's ac- 
count of the interview between Achilles and Patroclus in the shades ! 
Those who wish to see the question more fully discussed, may consult 
Dr. Price's excellent dissertation upon the subject.". 

It is with regret I state that I have never been able to meet with 
Dr. Price's dissertation, and of course cannot give any of the views 
afforded by hirn. 



32 

through, by the force of theological acumen ! and hasten to 
bring our remarks to a conchision. 

If the object in question is proved by the work we have thus 
considered, benevolent as it undoubtedly is intended to be, we 
must confess that we are altogether ignorant of the nature of 
proof! The exposition given, is certainly not warranted by 
any clear and undisputed text of Scripture, and must be 
viewed as a mere ad captanduin appeal to the miserable finite 
and contracted feelings of imperfect human nature ! The al- 
leged pj'obabilities from Scripture are mere suppositions — 
calling up Abraham from the cave of Ephron; of David and 
his child by Bathsheba, &c., do not surely amount to proof; 
nay, they are badly employed for the purpose intended ; and 
when, in chapter 4, we are told that " the doctrine is further 
proved from the New Testament," in vain do we look for it, 
or recognise such proof, by the reference to St. Paul, 1 Cor. 
xiii. 12; to the transfiguration; to the twelve apostles sitting 
upon twelve thrones. &c. ; or from the penitent thief, aided, 
as is imagined, by sundry commentators. " Is there any 
thing fanciful, it is asked, in certain proposed persons who 
had met on earth, recognising each other in heaven 1" No, 
assuredly. But it is to be remembered, that this is not the 
great design that was to be proved ; but to substantiate the 
recognition o^ friends and relatives as such here beloiv, in 
the kingdom of heaven ! It is a subject that is not established 
by revelation, and must, consequently, be sustained by suppo- 
sition, whichsoever side of the argument may be advocated, 
and that adhered to that may appear most reasonable ; and 
although as a merely metaphysical proposition, it may be al- 
lowed to interest those who are attached lo such speculations, 
it does not seem calculated to prove of a beneficial tendency, 
in either its character or bearing. It may tend, for a short 
time, to assuage the grief of the mourner; but at a period of 



33 



calmer and more tranquillized feeling, we cannot doubt that 
far greater comfort may be obtained by a careful perusal of 
numerous passages of sacred writ, than by yielding to the 
pleasing reveries of this and other works of a like descrip- 
tion. 




ON THE DESCENT 

Of Jesus Christ into Hell — as an Article of Belief of the 
Protestant Episcopal Church — tviih an Attempt to show 
that it cannot be proved from the Sacred Scriptures. 



Having, in a preceding part of the remarks here presented 
to the public, pointed to two or three of the Articles of the 
Episcopal church, which appear to need some modification, I 
then mentioned my intention of more fully entering on the 
consideration of that, which refers to the descent of Jesus 
Christ into hell as being proved from Scripture, and consti- 
tuting, on that score, an item in the Apostles' creed. I feel 
much diffidence in approaching a subject held so sacred by 
the church; and, but for my firm belief of its error, and of its 
conveying a doctrine that is not warranted by Scripture, I 
should have shrunk from the attempt, although it would have 
been utterly out of my power, in repeating that portion of the 
creed, to have given to any inquirer a reason for the faith in 
which I thus asserted my belief. 

In considering this subject, the first step essential seems to 
be that of ascertaining the authenticity of the so called Apos- 
tles' creed ; and here we at once stumble upon a heap of un- 
certainties as to its real author, or authors, however great may 
be its intrinsic merits, and its standing in the church, as may 
be seen under the article Creed, in Buck's Theological Dic- 
tionary. It is not my intention, however, to confine myself 



35 

to his concise remarks, but I shall derive my observations 
from a distant period. Although the authorities on which 1 
might draw, are numerous, I shall limit myself 'to one alone^ 
who appears to have consulted all previous and contemporary 
writers in the formation of the work he himself has left us. 
It is entitled, " Hermanni Witsii Exercitationes sacrse in Sym- 
bolum quod Apostolorum dicitur," &c. The edition I have is 
the 3d. 4to. J\mst. 1697: the 1st edition was printed in 1681. 
Of its estimation, a judgm.ent may be formed from what Wal- 
chius says of it, viz. — " cum ob egregium rerum adparatum ; 
tum ob solidam illarum et perspicuam expositionem merito 
laudantur," &c. Bibl. Theol. Select. V. 1, p. 309. 

After adverting to authors before him, Witsius proceeds to 
tell us, that the Romish church is so confident of its being the 
production of the apostles, that the calling this in question is 
deemed the height of temerity; although the doctors of that 
church cannot determine precisely at what time it was ac- 
tually framed. Some assert, that it is not the production of 
one alone to whom the task was allotted, but that each apostle 
afforded a portion ; the creed being thus constituted of twelve 
articles, and receiving the approbation of the collected council. 
The individual portion of each is then given from Baronius, 
" laudata B. Augustini auctoritate, qui de Tempore, Serm. 
CXV. sic scripsisse perhibetur." 

" Petrus dixit : Credo in Deum Patrem, Omnipotentem. 
Johannes dixit : Creatorem Coeli et Terrse. 
Jacobus dixit ; Credo et in Jesum Christum, filium ejus uni- 

cum, Dominum nostrum. 
Andreas dixit : Qui conceptus est de Spiritu sancto, natus ex 

Maria Virgine. 
Philippus ait : Passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus, 

et sepultus. 
Thomas ait: Descendit ad Inferos, tertia die resUrrexit a 

mortuis. 



36 

BartholomcBUS dixit: Ascendit ad Ccelos, sedet ad dextram 

Dei Patris omnipotentis. 
Matthceus dixit: Inde venturus est judicare vivos et mor- 

tuos. 
Jacobus Alphcei : Credo et in Spiritum Sanctum, Sanctam 

Ecclesiam Catholicam. 
Simon Zelotes : Sanctorum Communionem, Remissionem 

Peccatorum. 
Judas Jacohi : Carnis resurrectionem. 
Matthias complevit : Vitam seternam. Amen,"* 

All this, Witsius tells us, is attempted to be proved from the 
fathers and from reason, by the inscription, and from the col- 
lation of the v^^ords of the creed : the arguments by which the 
adherents of the opinion sustain it are stated, but are deemed 
unsatisfactory, and are regarded by Witsius as false, or at least 
uncertain, as he very conclusively shows. He adds, more- 
over, that in the early state of Christianity, no other creed is 
to be found, but that which Christ delivers. Matt, xxviii. 19 — 
"Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptizing them," &c.; 
and to this alone the ancient fathers often appealed. "j" By Ihe 
springing up of heresies from time to time, the church was 

* This formula may likewise be found, with some slight variations, 
in many other writers. 

+ Sixtus Sinensis. — At p. 42, Bibliotheca Sancta, Leyd. 1592, F., 
speaking of the " Symbolum Apostolorum," sajs that Erasmus, in his 
paraphrase of Matthew, declares his ignorance as to the apostles 
having framed it. All the orthodox fathers declare that they did ; 
and Rufinus is quoted on the subject. It is stated that this joint pro- 
duction of the apostles was indited by them whilst the cloven tongues 
were resting on them, as the foundation of their future preaching, in 
order to preclude any variation by others of what they had learned 
from Jesus Christ; that by their united conference, each composed 
his part, under the influence of the Holy Spirit. St. Augustin's sen- 
timents are then given on the matter, and the symbol, as detailed 
above. 



37 

unable to retain its original simplicity ; whence it happened, 
that to the above plain comnaand various additions were con- 
joined, instances of which are adduced; amongst which, is 
that which constitutes the object of this essay. "Constat ar- 
ticulum de Descensu ad Inferos in multis Symboli editionibus 
non coiri'paruisse. Ipse Rufinus in expositione Symboli, cap. 
20, testatur suo tempore eum in Symbolo Ecclesise Romanse 
et Orientalium Ecclesiarum defuisse. Esse autem eum ex 
Symbolo Athanasii in symbolum apostolorum intrusum, ab 
hominibus qui non animadverterunt in eodem Symbolo deside- 
rari articulos mortis et sepultnrse," &c. Nor was the term of 
" Catholic" known in the time of the apostles, nor even to Ru- 
finus 300 years after. " Unde concludimus, non esse hoc 
symbolum unius auctoris, vel unius Concilii ; sed lahentihus 
seculis, varia occasione, a variis, multis accessionibus locuple- 
tatum : exstantibus tamen veteris fundamenti, cui reliqua su- 
per sedificata sunt, indiciis." 

Witsius, though thus opposing its presumed origin from the 
apostles, speaks of it as being of high authority, though not of 
the highest, which the Romish church attaches to it ; and he 
blames that church for employing it " pro formula quadam 
orationis." Three distinct formulse exist, viz : " Decalogus, 
Oratio Dominica, et Symbolum. In Decalogo Deus loquitur 
Hominibus. In Oratione, Homo loquitur Deo. In Symbolo, 
Homo loquitur et Deo, et Hominibus. Uti Oratio distincta est 
a Lege : ita et Symbolum distinctissimum est ab Oratione." 

Having concluded the inquiry of its origin, Witsius proceeds 
to consider its individual parts, in the order in which they ap- 
pear in the creed ; and at p. 318, we have his observations on 
the subject, "c?e descensu Christi ad Inferos, which he denies 
to be found in any part of Scripture. " Dicitur (says he) 
quidem descendisse, dicitur in inferis fuisse, sed ita junctis 
verbis ut descendisse ad inferos prsedicetur, nulli legimus. 
He refers again to the fact, that in almost all the ancient 

D 



38 

creeds, this article is wanting. The most ancient of those in 
which it is found, is the particular or private creed of Atha- 
nasius, if indeed it be his, of which doubts exist, for Vossius 
shows, that "ante annum sexcentesimum symboujm illud vel 
omnino non fuisse, vel saltern non fuisse in ecclesia notum." 
Moreover, those creeds that had the article of the descent into 
hell, had not that of his hvrial, and the reverse; both being 
subsequently but erroneously joined together. At the time of 
Rufinus, " ipsa Ecclesia Romana erat contenta meminisse so- 
lius sejpulturcE;'''' and Vossius states, that "Orientales per de- 
scensum Christi ad inferos, primitus intellexisse quod occiden- 
tales vocarent sepulturam." Erasmus thought the junction of 
the two was made by Thomas Aquinas, who lived about An. 
1250; but Witsius says he finds it in Socrates, lib. 2. (5th 
century.) 

He soon afterwards says, that although it is true, that nei- 
ther in Scripture, nor in ancient creeds, the article of the de- 
.scent of Christ into hell is verbally found, it is, nevertheless, 
"a nobis pie creditur et asseritur, modo senso commodo ;'''' and 
that, in its investigation, we should care less what some an- 
cients understood of the words, than what is to be regarded as 
congruous to the faith, and to Scripture phraseology — and 
then proceeds to consider the unity of the Hebrew word 
Sheol, with the Greek word Ades, as denoting "Sepul- 
chrum, vel statum quorumcunque hominum in morte" — 
all tending to prove that the affirmed descent of Christ into 
hell is incorrect; and he judiciously adds, "Cui usui ilia 
animee Christi ad Tartarum profectio?" He finally notices 
all the places in Scripture wherein the Greek and Hebrew 
words, oto^jjs and sheol, are employed, and demonstrates clear- 
ly, that they cannot with any propriety be forced into the 
construction that is put upon them by the article of the creed 
which he is considering. 

What is above reported from Witsius, is, I think, sufficient 
to decide the point at issue ; yet, inasmuch as we are told in 



39 

the articles of the church, that the descent of Christ into hell is 
"^0 he thoroughly received and believed,^'' as it ^^may be 
proved by most certain ivarranis of holy Scripture,^'' I con- 
sider it requires further proof of its being entirely erroneous; 
and indeed, the circumstance of permission being granted to 
modify the phrase by using " the place of departed spirits" for 
that of hell, shows the necessity of revision, and of a more 
explicit explanation ; since our children are taught in the cate- 
chism, from their childhood, that doctrine in its natural accep- 
tation ; and with few exceptions, carry to their grave, their firm 
belief in the positive descent of their Saviour into the infernal 
region. Now it surely is of the utmost importance that nothing 
contradictory or doubtful should find a place in our esteemed 
Liturgy, or which may be made in any way subservient to in- 
fidelity; if, therefore, any apparent difficulty can be softened 
down or removed, is it not imperative to attempt it? As the 
Nicene creed does not assert the doctrine under consideration, 
why need it be retained in the Apostle's creed 1 All may yield a 
ready belief in the former, who may yet conscientiously differ 
from the latter. It was undoubtedly a happy improvement in 
the formation of a Liturgy for the American Episcopal Church, 
that its framers had the resolution to entirely rescind that 
most obnoxious Athanasian creed, by which the parent church 
of England is still deformed, although strongly urged to retain 
it by the English prelates; and it is a source of deep regret 
that our clergy did not equally withstand their ill-directed zeal, 
in insisting on the retention of the unscriptural article we are 
now considering, and making that a proviso for the conse- 
cration of our bishops ! 

Although the substitute allowed for the term hell, renders a 
meaning less obnoxious, yet we are not enlightened in any de- 
gree, as to where ."the place of departed spirits" is, and why 
they are doomed there to remain until the final judgment. If 
the spirits at death, both good and bad, do indeed have such a 



40 

habitation, of unknown and undefined limitation, are we to 
presume them to be commingled together in one common re- 
ceptacle? Now; although we may not maintain precisely the 
doctrine of purgatory, little difference can be drawn between 
the churches of England and Rome in this particular, beyond 
the power of the latter, by masses and absolutions, &c., to re- 
move a soul from this temporary abode. 

But if we bring ourselves to believe that in the sacred volume 
we can find a sanction for this especial article of our creed ; 
we are yet unable to perceive, that, whether reading hell, or 
place of departed spirits, such words will reach the Saviour's 
intentions, when he said to the penitent thief, " this day thou 
shalt be with me in 'paradise,'''' implying, to our imperfect com- 
prehension, something very different from that of the preced- 
ing terms, if, as we are told, they have the same intrinsic 
meaning. 

By paradise is meant, conformably to the lexicons, the third 
heaven, the dwelling of God, of the holy angels, and of the 
spirits of the just. Now, if it was to this place that the spirit 
of the thief accompanied our Saviour, the term of hell, in its 
common acceptation, is highly exceptionable; and yet it un- 
questionably is received in that acceptation, by a large majority 
of those who read or repeat the Apostle's creed. The use of 
the term hell, is even defended by some of our clergy, precisely 
on the ground, that it is the scriptural expression of the doc- 
trine designed to be taught in it, and therefore they are dis- 
satisfied with the alternative expression, and coincide fully with 
Bishop Pearson and others, who entertain no doubt of the 
actual and positive descent of Jesus Christ into hell.* 

Some writers on the subject use the term hades, [cc^m) and 

* Highly as all true and orthodox Churchmen are bound to venerate 
the lawn of Episcopacy, it by no means follows that they are equally 
bound, without conviction, to " pin their faith" on the sleeve of every 
individual whom it may chance to adorn ! at least in the United States. 



41 

hell is certainly one of its meanings, as the lexicons teach us. 
Thus, says one of them, it is, 

1., The invisible abode of the dead. 2. Hell, — the place of 
torraeut into which the fallen angels were cast, — and where 
the wicked are punished after death. 3. The grave, perhaps 
death perspnified. 4. A state of abasement or misery in this 
life. But cchi'i is not the word that Is used by our Saviour in 
St. Luke; it is ev ra Trcc^cchicra. 

Besides the above meanings of the word cii^jjs, there is one 
that is the absolute reverse of hell, viz : Heaven itself. Co- 
lomesius, a presbyter of the English Church, and librarian of 
the Lambeth Library, in one of his writings entitled x^if^TjXtoc, 
(Literaria) p. 302, 4to. Hamb. ed. 1709, has a short chapter, 
headed " A^i pro ccbIo apud veteres." 

"Vox ci^m generalis est, cum ad locum tormentorum, tum ad 
locum quietis. Hinc non modo pro inferis, vervm etiampro ccelo 
quandoque usurpatur — author innominatus apud Suldam, Trcco-oi 
uvuyKij^ Totg f^<^v uya^oiii sv oc^a sasB-ai ccf^snov roiq y^on ^ccy^oic, y,c(.Kiov, 
Sic Josephuset post eum Theodoret.usjosj'ift; omnibus hominibus 
tribuunt, impiis quidem o-Konoire^o-i^ piis vero 06)reivov. Adhsec 
asserit Hugo Brugthonus, in S. Script urse concentu ab Isaaco 
Genio latine verso, in multis vetustissimis.codicibus mms. ora- 
tionem Dominicam in livnc modum inveniri, Tcocre^ j^/Lcav o sv 
ci^ti. Veteres quoque Macedones orationem banc nusquam 
aliter precatos fuisse." 

I find the above statement of Co[omesius as to the use of 
the word oi^tjg for heaven, confirmed in an old Grseco-Latin 
Lexicon, (1538) in which it is stated, that ^^ ot^-^q Macedonum 
Dialecto, 8^avo§." If then hades implies both heaven and hell, 
surely, in the case of our Saviour, it ought to be employed in 
its best signification, especially since St. Luke particularly 
states that it was to paradise the thief was to accompany him. 
He says not a word about o>,^r,(; — and hence, I think the pro- 
priety of making some change in the obnoxious term in the 

d2 



42 

Ci'eed, must be obviofis to every one, — since, ^^•hethe^ the creed 
was framed by the apostles, or by others subsequent to them, 
it is certain that the words spoken by the great head of the 
church have been changed, if St. Luke is to be regarded as 
authority in the case. Now the apocalyptic injunction and 
anathema are precise and unqualified as to adding or dimin- 
ishing aught of the sacred writings ! 

The words employed by Jesus Christ not being in English, 
but in Greek or Hebrew (most probably the latter, as being a 
Jew by birth ; the exclamation " Eli, Eli, lama sabacthani, 
either in Hebrew or Syriac, being taken from the 22d psalm ; 
his preaching no doubt to the Jews in their native language, 
with other analogous circumstances); it appears necessary in 
this investigation to refer to the particular idiom, that we may 
the more correctly estimate the precise meaning, and thereby 
vindicate, or uproot the English word that we have adopted in 
the creed, and which has been ^miliar from early infancy. 
We might indeed rest here, and confine the inquiry altogether 
to the word paradise, as employed by St. Luke; nevertheless, 
since that Evangelist makes use of two different words in the 
same chapter (2od) to express the same mode of our Saviour's 
death, it would appear correct to inquire further as to that 
which is the more immediate object of research, remarking 
that when any word has a variety of meanings,* considerable 
judgment is required on the part of a translator, in adopting 
that meaning which is most conformable to the object had in 
view by the original. St. Luke speaks of the maleftictors, in 
the chapter referred to, as being crucified [eo-rccv^a^ocv) with our 

* The word han in French, which at first sight appears to be so sim- 
ple, nevertheless, to our surprise, on consulting the " Nouvcau Dic- 
tionnaire de TAcadeniie Francoise, Paris ed. 1718 — will present to us 
no less than seventy-four different significations in its employment ! 
Surely the translator of any work into another language, ought to be 
well acquainted with both, and with ail their idiomatic capabilities ! 



43 

Saviour; yet, only six verses further on, they are said to be 
hanged, [H.^ef^xcresvrii)v) — and the Greek expresses it thus dif- 
ferently. Are we, therefore, to suppose them literally hanged 
and not crucified, or the reverse, as fancy may dictate, without 
reference to the respective variations of meaning in the words ? 
It is probable that both alike signify to suspend ; and that 
although by hanging, crucifixion is indirectly meant, yet that 
crucifixion cannot, by any means, convey the act of hanging 
in its common acceptation. But in the expression of our Saviour 
to the thief, no such ambiguity exists ; a single word is alone 
presented to us, that is, paradise, not hell, in any shape or con- 
struction; and we cannot comprehend its introduction into our 
translation, without entering more fully on the subject, which 
will amply fortify us in the persuasion that the word hell, (un- 
doubtedly understood by the majority in its most obnoxious 
sense,) ought to be replaced by some other better calculated to 
convey the true and intrinsic meaning of the text. Even 
hades, being general in its signification, as embracing both 
heaven and hell, will scarcely supply its place; — paradise alone 
seems to be the most appropriate, especially as it is that used 
by the apostle. 

A^i;, as employed by St. Peter (Acts ii.) is in our transla- 
tion, hell, and infernus in the Latin. But as we believe some 
other of its numerous idioms might be here more appropri- 
ately made use of, we shall not be deterred from the re- 
search, although in opposition to the high authority of Bishop 
Pearson and others ; who, though able and learned theologians, 
are certainly not infallible, either in their views or explanations 
of different parts of the apostolic creed. 

St. Peter in his remarks (Acts ii. 27, 31,) refei^ to the* 16th 
Psalm — it is necessary, therefore, for us to follow in his foot- 
steps. The Greek word ei^t^i in the Acts, will be found to be 

:i<|f^Six|eentli in our English translation, but fifteenth in the Latin 
Vulgate ! Whence this vaiiation? 



44 

in the Hebrew b)^^ (sheol) — and we must consequently seek for 
its signification and synonymes, as being the Hebrew represen- 
tation of the Greek, Latin and English term respectively made 
use of. 

Leigh, in his " Critica Sacra," p. 238, Lend. 1672, tells us 
that sheol responds to the Greek ^(^>jc, by which it is invariably 
expressed in the Septuagint, except 2 Sam, 22, 6, where it is 
translated 6civa,ro<; in Greek, and Infernus in the Latin. Sheol, 
he adds, is used in Scripture in four distinct senses. 

1. Metaphorically, for hell — That is, for deep plunging into 
extreme sorrow, misery, and danger. Ps. Ixxxvi. 13. 

2. For the local place of hell, properly — Prov. xv. 11. 

3. For the grave — natural and common to all — Prov. xxx. 16. 

4. For the lower, deep, and remote parts of the earth, with- 
out relation to the place of punishment. — Ps. cxxxix. 8. To 
these, he adds, 

5. For the common place or state of the dead. Ps. xxx. 3, 
and many other references. So ^J'ns is taken 1 Cor. xv. 55, 
Gen. xxxvii. 35. Sheol signifieth any devouring gulf or pit, 
swallowing up the dead, as Numb. xvi. 33 ; — and he remarks, 
that sheol is here badly interpreted in the vulgate by infernus. 

Gussetius, in his " Commentarii Ling. HebraicsB," fol. 
1702, p. 812, ver}^ nearly agrees with the above; and all that 
is said conspires to prove, that Jiell, in our common acceptation, 
is not the appropriate signification. AQvq^o^ and ysewcc, are 
more frequently the representative appellations of that place of 
torment. 

It would seem then, tVom all here stated, that our Saviour in 
his reply to the thief, could have had no intention of conveying 
an idea of his own descent into hell, and for the especial pur- 
pose that Pearson and others have assigned to him. Had such 
been the case, may it not be presumed that his language 
would have been different, less obscure, and liable to no mis- 
interpretation ? 



45 

Other meanings of our vernacular term hell, may be curso- 
rily adverted to in connexion with aj^ng, from Leigh, in the most 
of which he is sustained by Gussetius, and by Parkhurst, who 
refers to him with great respect. 

Leigh informs us, that " «cr«?, inferi — according to Bellar- 
mine always signifies hell, the grave never ; but learned Came- 
ron observes that it never, but in one place of scripture, sig- 
nifieth hell, but constantly either the grave, or the state and 
condition of a man deceased. Vatablus and others, on Acts 
ii. say that «cf «? and Tartarus, ' non recte confunduntur. Nam 
««f»j not pertinet ad Daemon ia, sed tantum ad homines mor- 
tuos, bonos malosque, et quidem duntaxet medio tempore inter 
mortem et resurrectionem. Tartara autem Grsecorum ex- 
emplo, Petrus dixit cam regionem in qua impuri spiritus ad 
tempus judicii, velut captivi, asseverantur." Grotius, in Luc. 
8, 31. 

"aJ';;^ est locus visibus nostris subtractus, et de corpore qui- 
dem cum accipiti:ir, sepulchrum in quo est corpus sine animo : 
de animo vero,totam illam regionem in qua est animus sine 
corpore significat. Itaque fult Dives quidem ev u^tj; sed fuit 
ev oi^Tj etiam Lazarus^ disterminatis xS'a regionibus. Nam et 
Paradisus et Gehenna, sive, ut loquebantur Gra^ci, Elysii et 
Tartara sunt ev a^i^.^^ Grot, in Luc. 16, 23. 

The word u^tji;, as some have remarked, signifies three 
things in the New Testament. 

1. The sepulchre, Acts ii. 27, for, first, Peter makes an op- 
position between the grave into which David was shut up, and 
the hell out of which Christ was delivered; v. 2^, 31. ^e- 
condly, Peter saith, expressly, that the words must be under- 
stood of the resurrection of Christ; v. 3. Thirdly, this ap- 
peareth by Paul's citing of it; Acts xiii. 34, 35. Fourthly, 
it is so expounded, Ps. xvi. 12, by many Popish writers, in- 
ferno, id est sepidchro. Q^ Here numerous references are 
made in proof, from the Old and New Testaments, ending 



46 

with Rev. xx. 13, 14. "Death and u^g are cast into the 
lake of fire." Now we cannot say hell is cast into hell, but 
the g?'ave into hell. 

2. It signifieth the place of torment; Luke xvi. 23. 

3. It is taken for the Devil himself; Matt. xvi. 18 — and so 
it is taken sometimes amongst profane authors. Both the 
Septuagint in the Old Testament, and the apostle in the New; 
Acts ii. 27 ; 1 Cor. xv. 55 ; do use the Greek word ci^y>i, and 
the Latin interpreter the word inferniis or inferi, and the 
English the word hell, for that which in the Hebrew text is 
named skeol. The king's translators of the Bible do render 
the word sheol, in the Old Testament, usually hell; Deut. 
xxxii. 22; Ps. ix. 17; Ixxxvi. 13. Yet in divers places they 
call it the pit; Job xvii. 16 ; and in sundry places, the gi'ave; 
and it cannot otherwise be well rendered, as Gen. xxxvii. 35 ; 
xlii. 38; 1 Kings ii. 6; Ps. xlix. 15; vi. 5; Isaiah xxxviii. 
18. All learned Hebrecians, know that sheol is more proper 
for grave than hell; and that the Hebrews have no word pro- 
per for hell, as we take hell; but either they xxf^e, figuratively, 
sheol, or more certainly Topheth or Gehinnom, For sheol is 
in no place so necessarily to be taken for hell, but that it may 
also be taken for the grave. But although that H^ebrew word 
properly signify a receptacle of the bodies after death, yet, 
when mention is of the wicked, by consequence it may signify 
hell, as day signifieth light; the night, darkness; fire, heat; 
peace, prosperity. Again, sheol signifieth a place which is 
dark and obscure, where nothing can be seen ; such as the 
grave or pit is, in which the dead is laid; which, therefore, of 
Job X. 21, 22, is called the land of darkness. The Latin 
word infernus signifieth, generally, a low place : a,^,^, like- 
wise, they translate in most places hell; yet in one place, 
1 Cor. XV. 55, the grave. 

" Sheol, a verbo shaal, quod petere et postulare significat, 
quod sepulchrum omnes mortales quasi hiantis oris vorago 



47 

petit; unde et insatiabile dictum; Prov. xx. 20; xxx. 16;* 
vel, quod omnes mortalitatis ratione eo feruntur, quasi ad ter- 
minum quern petunt : vel, quod qui in sepulchris conduntur, a 
viventibus petuntur et desiderantur." — Amesius. 

" aJ'jjs, ab ti^a, vel potius ab a, priv. et verbo i^av^ et dicitur 
per syna3resin pro flj<<^sj$, sine luce domus. — Virg. Latini 
Theologi infernum, a situ vocant, et iriferos, quse vox, si ab 
inferendo dicta est, tarn sepvlchrvm quam Gehennam denotare 
potest. Ut enim in lianc animee, ita in illvd corpora infe- 
runtur." — Amama Antibarb. Bibl. lib. 3. Profani vero au- 
tores orcum nominare solent. We, in English, call it hell (as 
some say), from the Old Saxon or German word helle; in 
which tongues, originally, Jiell signifieth deep; leh is low; 
and so it meaneth a low or deep place, and agrees with the 
Hebrew sheol^ which is said, Deut. xxxii. 20, Job ii. 8, to be 
low and deep. Usher sa3^s (answer to Jesuits' challenge) 
Verstegan's derivation is the most probable, from being hilled 
over, that is, hidden or covered. For in the Old German 
tongue, from whence our English was extracted, hil signifieth 
to hide : and in this country (England), with them that retain 
the ancient language which their forefathers brought with 
them, to hill the head, is as much as to cover the head: so 
that, in the original proprietie of the word, our hell doth ex- 
actly answer to the Greek, ^tf^?, which denoteth a place un- 
seen." 

Consult, also, Cocceius' "Comment, in Job," fol. 1644, p. 
102, all tending to show that sheol means the sepulchre or 

* " Ex Proverbiorum, cap. 30, inter insa.tiabilia, et ea quse nunquam 
dicunt sufficit, sepulchrum et vulva collocantur. Quserunt hie Rabbini 
quae affinitas est sepulchro (Sl^st^), cum vulva. Sed responditur, que- 
madmodum vulva recipit semen, et postea edit aliquod vivens : ita 
etiam sepulchrum recipit corpora defunctorum, et postea die resurrec- 
tionis eadem reddit." — Menassah Ben Israel, de Resurrectione Mor- 
tuorum, p. 23. 



48 

grave. If, therefore, ctj^n? is the Greek representative, then it 
must mean the same. 

Should more be wanting to satisfy the reader on the subject 
under consideration, we refer him to Sixtinus Amama, in his 
work, entitled " Anti-Barbarus BibUcus," 12mo. Amst. 1628, 
wherein the t'rauds and corruptions of the Scriptures by the 
Romish church are fully set forth and demonstrated, by re- 
ference to the original Hebrew version, &c. From a large 
amount, I make a {ew extracts. 

P. 432, on Gen. xxxvii. 35, the word sheol, in Hebrew, is 
said to be used indifferently both for hell and the grave (turn 
ad infernum quam ad sepulchrum); and hence the words in- 
fernus and a^},g, by interpreters, are often put for the grave. 
As employed here in the Vulgate, it is treated as ambiguous, 
and as tending to establish, in the common people, the fiction 
of a limbus, or place of purgatory. A host of authorities are 
presented, in proof of the grave being, with scarce an excep- 
tion, the appropriate meaning of sheol. More to the same 
effect is given at p. 578, on Numb. xvi. 33, and at p. 665, 
Job xiv. 14; where we are told, that "hie et quamplurimis 
insuper locis ubi in latino est infernus, in Belgic. Helle, in 
Ebrseo esse S^iy, quse vox etiam sepulchrum significat." Also 
see p. 677, Job xxiv. 19, and Ps. Ixxxv. 13, with final re- 
marks at p. 894, on the fraudulent translation of the Vul- 
gate. 

I shall merely add, that Rauppius, in his "Commentarium 
Synopticum," 1665, in almost every place of the Scriptures in 
which the word sheol is employed, regards its most appro- 
priate meaning to be the grave. 

Bishop Newton's 57th and 60th Dissertations, in the 6th 
vol. of his works, London, 1767; and Bishop Hobart's "State 
of the Departed," are worthy of consideration; and the fol- 
lowing, from Sterne (Koran, p. 152), gives, in few words, the 
full idea of the subject. He is speaking of the importance of 



49 

the number three^ and adds, " This leads me naturally to 
hades, or ades, the old-fashioned region of distribution, ac- 
cording to our good or bad deeds. It consisted of three pro- 
vinces, Erebus, Tartarus, and Elysium — heaven, hell, and 
purgatory." — This is a concise view of the precise acceptation 
of hades, of which hell constitutes a "province;" but not that 
province to which, under the name of paradise, our Saviour 
went, and to which also the penitent thief was to accompany 
him. 

We trust that sufficient authority has thus been afforded, to 
place thef object we had in view fully before the reader, viz» 
the utter impropriety of that part of the third article of our 
church wherein it is affirmed that Christ descended into hell, 
and that, as introduced into the Apostles' creed, it is to be 
firmly believed, as being capable of proof from the Scriptures. 
We think it is adequately shown, that whether ades or sheol 
be assumed as the ground of argument, both are equally un- 
founded, when taken as the representatives of our vernacular 
term of hell, and diametrically opposed to the paradise of St. 
Luke. If the facts and arguments adduced have any weight, 
they may perhaps lead to some change or modification in the 
parts assumed to be erroneous, that may prove acceptable to 
all who may coincide in opinion with the writer. 



REMARKS ON PHRENOLOGY, 

In its Connexion with the Soul; and as to the Existence of 
a Soul in Brutes. Read before the Phrenological So- 
ciety of Philadelphia, in 1822. 



The following essay is not given to the public at this late date from 
the period of its delivery before the Phrenological Society, when the 
subject was comparatively unknown here, and almost universally de- 
rided, with any view of affording instruction in the science j for since 
that time, by the learned lectures and writings of Dr. Coombe and 
others, its value has become properly appreciated. It is chiefly in- 
tended to point out, that few sciences are of anterior standing; and 
that long before Gall and Spurzheim undertook to maintain its right- 
ful claim to rank amongst them, it had received a very extensive 
consideration amongst medical and other writers, of which the facts 
herein adduced will be deemed sufficient proof. 



The use of any part of the body in a due and appropriate 
degree, is admitted universally to favour its improvenaent, both 
as to health and vigour, and in the perfection of its functional 
duties. The arms of the blacksmith have their muscles vastly 
augmented in size and strength, by daily employment of the 
ponderous sledge-hammer; the dexterity of the artisan is ac- 
quired by constant habit, and his skill in his profession thereby 
improved. If this be the fact in relation to merely mechanical 
manipulations, can it with reason be presumed that the facul- 
ties of the mind should remain stationary, when they are sub- 



51 

jected to a like activity ? Memory, each one perceives to be 
invigorated by exercise; nor is the imagination of the poet 
less vividly excited and expanded by proper culture, although 
the adage even of "Poeta nascitur, non fit," should be granted 
to him. Crime itself improves by habit, and the propriety of 
an early and virtuous education is established by the maxim, 
that "nemo fuit repente turpissimus." The whole train of the 
faculties, emotions and passions of the mind, appear to owe 
their extension, whether for good or evil, to their continued* 
action under the influence of a good or bad education, con- 
formably to what is learned in the nursery, "just as the twig 
is bent, the tree inclines." It would seem impossible to con- 
ceive of these and other improvements taking place, with no 
commensurate increase of vigour in those parts respectively, 
by means of which they are rendered apparent. Whilst, then, 
the due exercise of the mind tends to the improvement of those 
organs in which it is located, or through which its actions are 
rendered effective, must it not be conceded that such improve- 
ment in the organs will cooperate in giving energy to the 
mind, and thereby evidence the mutual necessity of each to 
the other? and, like the motto of our own vast empire, the 
soul and body may declare, " United we stand, divided we 
fall." 

The regular employment of the senses, with which it has 
pleased our Maker to endow us, adds much to their respective 
improvement. If unduly or inordinately exercised, deteriora- 
tion ensues. The absence or loss of one, is in a measure 

* The result of habit in improving the operations of man, is thus 
defined by Aristotle, in his fourteenth problem — '* Consuetudinem 
definit Aristoteles, quod sit habitus, seu qualitas ex frequenti actione 
et passione impressa, propterquam promptius et diutius et cum de- 
lectatione operantur, et minus patiuntur." — Galen has written a book 
expressly, *' de consuetudine," and Hippocrates has not been alto- 
gether silent on the subject. 



52 

compensated through the medium of one or more of the re- 
mainder, although they never can fully supply the deficiency. 
The fact of the eye supplying the want of the sense of hear- 
ing, is familiar to all, in the cases of the deaf and dumb. The 
want of sight is partially rectified by the sense of hearing and 
of touch ; and even the conjoined loss of both hearing and of 
sight, has, in a very considerable measure, been overcome by 
the sense of touch ; but in all such instances, with increase of 
action of the organs in which those senses are located, in vain 
may we anticipate it, if the intercommunication is cut off be- 
tween the external organ and the sensorium. Perfect as may 
be the organ of sight in all its parts, and vision resulting 
therefrom of the highest character, the simple division of the 
optic nerve, all else remaining as before, effectually shuts out 
the light of day, and of every external object, which now can 
only be enjoyed by an act of reminiscence, or through the in- 
direct medium of another sense. 

These and similar facts necessarily led to the conclusion, 
that the brain was the actual source or seat of thought and 
sensation ; and although it surpasses our limited power of re- 
search to point out the precise part in which either thought or 
sensation might be supposed to originate,* yet endeavours 
have been made to trace the nerves to their origin, with which 
such a mysterious influence was presumed to be associated. 
But whatever may be affirmed as to their apparent origin, no 
one can confidently assure us of its absolute certainty, or that 

* It does not appear that the brain has been invariably considered 
to be the seat of the soul. In the " Excerpta Gemarae," I. cap. 9, 
p. 1016, the nose is stated as its location; for in Gen. vii. 22, it is 
written, " Omne cujus in nasibus halitus erat anima? vitalis." 

Tertullian considered the soul to be immortal, but that it was cor- 
poreally propagated. Some supposed the soul to be corrupted as the 
body became so ; and the Gnostics of old taught that brutes were ca- 
pable of reason, &c. 



53 

the anatomical knife has tended to denaonstrate the commence- 
ment of their course. Far too imperfect is our vision, even 
when aided by the microscope, to trace the cords of life be- 
yond a limited extent in the dead body; whilst, in the living, 
such attempt would be equally unavailing, since it would de- 
stroy that living principle on which their perfection depends ; 
and could we even trace them to their ultimate point, we 
should no more comprehend their mysterious connexion with 
the soul, than we do at present. 

If such difficulties attend our researches on points appa- 
rently within our reach, how far greater must they be, when 
connected with inquiries as to the intellectual faculties them- 
selves ! dependent for their existence on the agency of some 
mysterious and inappreciable cause, but which is active or 
efficient, alone, through the intermedium of materiality in 
corporeal organization! The soul, that emanation from the 
Deity, can be at best but very partially comprehended by 
man in his present imperfect state. O^ its essence, or of its 
mode of being, we know absolutely nothing; and speculate as 
we may, it would seem to be impossible to determine, by finite 
wisdom, whether it be of an immaterial or material nature. 
The endless disputes on this subject by philosophers and theo^ 
iogians, amount not to certainty on either side; for it is a 
mystery that the Almighty has reserved to himself, and has 
considered it inexpedient to satisfy by a revelation, the rest- 
less and unbounded curiosity of man. It must, nevertheless, 
be admitted, that the same great Power that from nothing 
called into existence the fabric of the universe, and fi'om the 
atomic particles of brute and inorganic matter created all the 
living evidences of his omnipotence, by laws depending on his 
pleasure, in the form and order that we see around us, varied 
ad infinitum to suit the great and providential ends He had in 
view; that Power, unquestionably, could invest the same inor- 
ganic matter with the capability of ratiocination as well as 

E 3 



54 

with life. What has actually been the case will never here be 
solved ; and hence we may conclude, that they who contend 
for the materiality of the soul, may maintain such opinion 
without being charged with opposition to the wonderful per- 
fection and attributes of the Deity. Material or immaterial, 
He alone can destroy it, when once brought into existence— 
for such is the language of Scripture — and, indeed, inde- 
pendently of his will, the smallest speck of matter is eternal 
as himself, and indestructible by any means that man can 
employ. The utmost we can do by art, is merely that of 
modifying in a slight degree its state of existence, and that 
solely by the operation of laws established by himself, and 
with which our acquaintance is extremely limited. 

It might here be a question of metaphysical inquiry at what 
period of the fostal existence the soul becomes united to the 
body; and whether acephalous monsters, deficient as they are 
in the brain, are yet possessed of this incomprehensible agency ; 
but whatever our individual opinion may be in this particular, 
as it is not essentially connected with the object of this essay, 
we pass it by; and incidentally inquire, whether the soul, as 
such, differs in different subjects ? Regarding it as an emana- 
tion from the Deity, it appears to me that the question must be 
answered in the negative. As God is all perfect, reason would 
dictate that nothing short of perfection could flow from him ;* 

* " And God saw every thing that he had made ; and behold, it was 
very good.'" Gen. i. 31. Surely, at this time there could have been 
no original sin existing in Adam ! When David said, Ps. li. 5, *' Be- 
hold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive 
me," he could not mean that any original sin attached to him at his 
birth, a helpless innocent being; but his language forcibly expresses 
the influence of that concupiscence that is inevitably an inmate of the 
human race — and which is affirmed in the ninth article of our church 
by the terms '^povufxA o-agKOi. How soon after birth, sin commences 
its ravages, it would, perhaps, be difficult to determine. Dr. Adam 
Clarke affirms the souls of men to differ — which is opposed to the 



55 

and hence that the soul must be uniform ; or else it would imply 
that perfection varied. Now it seems a solecism to maintain 
such a proposition, if we concede the soul to be derived from 
the sole source of supreme wisdom, harmony and goodness; 
and if this is a legitimate conclusion, it leads to the further 
inquiry on what the apparent difference of the minds of men 
can possibly depend. Here it may be perceived, that the prin- 
ciples of phrenology begin to appear; and if correctly viewed, 
will be found alone capable of eliciting a spark of truth in the 
elucidation of a fact so curious and important, but which each 
day's experience sufficiently establishes. If, as above main- 
tained, the soul can act (or render its actions sensible to man) 
only through the intermedium of material organization, and no 
other source or agency has, I believe, been ever suggested ; it 
follows necessarily, that its actions must be more or less per- 
fect, exactly in the ratio of the greater or less perfection of 
those organs through which they are developed. We might 
as readily assent to the perfection of a paralytic limb, or to 
that of the circulation of the blood, when the nerves or vessels 
are injured or destroyed, as to believe that the operations of the 
mind should be conspicuously perfect, when its operative agents 
are defective or wanting.* The various faculties regarded as 
innate, may truly exist, but their development is precluded al- 
together or in part, from the faulty or defective organization. 
The soul, however, is still connected with the body, and affords 
full evidence of its perfection, in the perfect actions of other 
parts, not so deteriorated. 

views here supported ; if, however, he is correct, the period of com- 
mencing sin in man, may also differ. 

* We might unquestionably as well accredit the ability of a new- 
born infant to eat and digest the most solid food of perfect manhood, 
in the imperfect state of its digestive organs, as to suppose the soul 
could demonstrate its highest powers and capabilities of ratiocination, 
before the corporeal organization had come to maturity. 



56 

Man is occasionally born with a defect in, or a total want of 
some particular organ or part of the body, and consequently 
is in the same degree precluded from performing the appro- 
priate actions of that part — is the deduction at all unreasonable, 
that if the organs of ratiocination are defective or wanting, 
this must equally be productive of error in them, or of a total 
absence of the influence their presence was intended to elicit ? 
We daily notice individuals in whom the defect in one of the 
external organs of sense, is sufficient to arrest the correspon- 
dent operation of the mind, which in its perfect state it would 
have exhibited, and that, notwithstanding the due perfection of 
every other part of the organ itself, and of the soul presiding 
in its functions, and this demonstrates the absolute dependence 
of each upon the other. What could the soul, however per- 
fect in itself, accomplish without such an intermedium with the 
world ? What could the organ accomplish if separated from 
its association with its divine attendant? A simple division of 
the nerve of intercommunication between the two, is sufficient 
to render each as useless, as if they had no existence. The 
manifestation of the soul will in vain be looked for; in vain 
are the actions of the part attempted. A sense is cut off, as 
though it was not present; and perfect as both may be, exclu- 
sive of the simple division of the nerve, all the foreign rela- 
tions of the world are immediately suspended. It is true, that, 
as before mentioned, in cases of this nature, some other sense 
is called into more active operation, and by its means, indi- 
rectly, the action of the defective or injured organ is in some 
measure supplied. The blind are thus enabled, mentally, to 
see through the ear and through the sense of touch. The deaf 
in like manner may be said to hear by means of the eye, — and 
the want of both hearing and seeing, is in a partial degree 
compensated through the sense of feeling. If such were not 
the case, a sense of deity, together with many of the facul- 
ties and emotions of the mind could never be called into ope- 



57 

ration, but would remain dormant, and as if never existent. 
The perfection of the soul within, is hereby established, though 
prevented from illustrating itself through corporeal and appro- 
priate channels. 

In the Edinburgh Philosophical Journal for January 7, 1822, 
some particulars are given by Dr. Butter, that may serve to 
illustrate what is above stated; it is the account of a very re- 
markable insensibility or imperfection of the eye in relation to 
certain colours, in the person of a son of Dr. Tucker, nine- 
teen years of age. The case is not a solitary one, however 
extraordinary. Similar instances are recorded in the Man- 
chester Memoirs, and in the 67th and 68th vol. of the Philos. 
Trans, of London. It appears from that under notice, that 
Mr. Tucker discovered his inability to distinguish several of 
the primitive colours from one another, about two years pre- 
ceding; that he employed a green in place of orange in some 
work he was engaged in, and could not credit his mistake ; nor 
could he distinguish any difference between threads of those 
two colours, when twisted around his fingers. Many leading 
or primitive colours he neither knows when shown to him, nor 
does he remember them when pointed out to him. Orange, he 
calls green, and green orange; red, he views as brown, and 
brown as red ; blue silk looks to him like pink — and pink as a 
light blue. The seven primitive colours are associated in his 
mind as follows : Red is mistaken for brown ; orange for green ; 
yellow, is generally known, but sometimes is taken for orange; 
green is mistaken for orange, except in grass; blue for pink ; 
indigo for purple, and violet for purple. All these anomalous 
impressions were equally the same, whether viewing silk, 
feathers, or Syme's book of colours. Other remarkable aber- 
rations were equally conspicuous. It was not the effect of 
disease, for his vision had been always acute and otherwise 
perfect. How is this singular deviation from common vision 
to be explained ? Surely the soul could not have been partially 



58 

imperfect ; and the corporeal organ of vision, so far as could 
be judged, seems to have been in a healthy state. Some organic 
modification must however necessarily have existed in some 
part, by which the usual laws of the refraction of the rays of 
light were altered ; for the faculty of vision seems perfect in 
itself — but was developed through the medium of imperfect 
organization in some of its ramifications, although inappre- 
ciable by any examination that could be made. 

However this may be explained, we are led to the conclu- 
sion, that certain organs of the brain may be either altogether 
wanting, or may be defective in different degrees, as is per- 
ceptible in situations more obvious and external. In the first 
case, the faculty or faculties of the mind, so far as they depend 
on such a part, cannot be developed ; and in the second, the 
development must be imperfect, in a commensurate ratio. We 
might, perhaps, even go so far as to suppose, that for the full 
perfection of any individual faculty of the mind, its location 
should, (as in the case of corporeal organs) be absolute and 
fixed, relatively to those adjoining, and that otherwise a dete- 
rioration of its operations would result.* Habit might rectify 
in a measure, the imperfection, but would probably never com- 
pletely obviate the influence of original non-conformity. Could 

* What would be the result, if one of the organs of the lower or 
animal propensities, should be located and manifest itself amongst 
those of the higher or intellectual order ? Is it not probable that this 
might be productive of ill consequences to the perfection of the latter? 
In like manner, we might imagine that tumours or other affections of 
the brain, might displace from its regular situation some organ, and by 
partially or totally destroying it, in a like ratio destroy its healthy 
manifestation, and its regular train of associated motions with the 
adjoining organs. Like monstrosities of the body, such cases might 
be deemed the source of mental monstrosity — ascending even to mad- 
ness, &c. ; and if the idea be correct, perhaps it would help to explain 
some of the numerous and extravagant vagaries which at times spring 
up in the mind of man. 



59 

the external organs of sight and hearing be otherwise than 
injured by transposition? Why then should not the appro- 
priate location of the internal faculties, be equally necessary to 
their full and perfect action? A departure from it, may pos- 
sibly explain some of the apparent anomalies in phrenological 
research, and of the operations and aberrations of the human 
intellect. If all the organs essential to the appropriate func- 
tions of the soul were invariably the same, and equally perfect 
in form, size and location, there ought, apparently, to be no 
diversity in their functional performances, independently alone 
of what might be attributed to education; which coerces them, 
as it were, from habit, to stronger action, and that for good or 
evil, according to the character of that instruction. But is it 
not a well established fact, that individuals of the same family, 
and educated alike, do differ most remarkably in disposition, 
and in the capability of attaining information, or of deducing 
conclusions from data founded on the same basis? In fact, 
the same discrepancy in character, &c., is equally conspicuous 
in the brute creations, both in domestic and in savage life. 

It has been asserted, in opposition to the opinions respecting 
the truths of phrenology, that the brain has an extent too 
limited, to enable it to afford a determinate origin to so vast an 
assemblage of organs, as apparently would be required to elu- 
cidate the sources or development of the numerous faculties 
and propensities exhibited by man ; and at first, such an asser- 
tion might be considered as unanswerable. But we may 
observe, that it is highly probable many of them are of a com- 
pound character (as from the seven primitive colours all the 
boundless variety of nature is constituted,) and that even if 
this is not the case, who will venture confidently to limit pre- 
cisely the exact extent or boundary of each or any of them? 
When we advert to the infinite minuteness of a mite, the ne plus 
ultra of ancient ideas as to the bounds of animal existence in 
this respect ; a mere speck in creation when placed in com- 



60 

parlson with the gigantic forms of the whale or the elephant,- — 
when we observe its various movements, its progressive exist- 
ence, and the rapidity of its increase in numbers; we are led 
at once to admit, without difficulty, that within that diminutive 
frame, a vast assemblage of organs essential to its animal 
life does actually exist, each of which is separate and distinct 
from the other, both in structure and in use ; yet all essential 
to the whole, though individually, nay, collectively, too small 
for investigation. A muscular fabric there exists, — a circu- 
lation of some description, from which its various parts are 
formed and nourished, a digestive apparatus, and possibly a 
nervous system, to mention no more ! to all which is super- 
added a principle of life, all thus united in a mass of matter 
scarcely capable of recognition by the naked eye ; when we 
advert to these facts, we may be led to the conclusion that a 
great extent of boundary is not required by the Creator of the 
universe for the location of any or of all the organs on which 
the existence or development of the faculties may depend. 
And if we should extend this consideration to a glance at those 
animalculse, known to us only through microscopic observations, 
the difficulty increases, although the facts are at once admitted 
by the inquirer after truth into those mysteries of nature. So 
far then, from minuteness being an insuperable obstacle in 
phrenological research, it rather tends to strengthen it, and will 
lead to the admission, that the brain is of sufficient extension 
to affi^rd ample origin to all the organs of sense and of ratio- 
cination, even if ten times more diversified than they are con- 
sidered to be. 

So far as I can perceive, revelation has unfolded to us no- 
thing definitively, by which imperfect reason can venture to 
pronounce with certainty as to the nature of the soul ; that is, 
and ever has been a contested point between metaphysicians, 
and in all probability ever will be, until the mystery is unfolded 
in a future state of existence. Since minds of equal eminence 



61 

have contested as to its materiality or immateriality, I am 
satisfied to await that event in order to arrive at its certain de- 
velopment. I am led, however, to draw the inference, that as 
it has been left undecided by the Great Author of its existence 
a mere speculative opinion on either side of the question, and 
which a divine revelation would have effectually obviated, can- 
not be justly considered in opposition to the strictest principles 
of religion ; and consequently that the subject is not less appro- 
priate to the exercise of the faculties implanted in us by our 
Creator, than that of any other of a metaphysical and mys- 
terious" nature. Could we possibly comprehend'it, it would not 
be found opposed to truth, which must always be in unison 
with a just philosophy, however repugnant to early imbibed 
and preconceived opinions. All would lead to the salutary 
confirmation of the absolute dependance of man on his Creator 
in every possible respect in which he can be viewed. I cannot, 
with these impressions, therefore believe, that every one who 
accredits the materiality of the soul, is necessarily to be 
esteemed either an atheist or an infidel. Neither can I 
imagine that the salvation of mankind is at all connected with 
the views that may be had thereon ; for were this the case, 
the truth would have been most clearly pointed out, equally 
with those duties we owe respectively to God and to our neigh- 
bours — among which charity stands preeminent, in place of 
anathema, imprisonment and death 1* 



* When we speak of materiality, allusion is always had to the con- 
stituent and diversified objects of creation that we see around us. 
Now, what do we actually know of all this ? The ancients talked of 
four elements as the basis of the world. How stands that theory now? 
A few years ago, the earths and alkalies were regarded as elementary. 
How a,s to that in the present more enlightened age ? Philosophy now 
teaches that there are some forty or fifty elementary constituents. 
How will this hold one hundred years hence ? What do we, in fact, 
know of any thing around us ? A few apparently (but not all fully) 

F 



62 

Be its nature as it may, we do perceive, in its presence within 
us, something that approximates us to the Deity, requiring, 
however, the cooperation of [secondary causes ; that is, a most 
wonderful organization of vitalized material particles, all de- 
rived from brute and inorganic matter directly or remotely, 
to render the operations of the soul sensible and effective. 
Through the agency of certain external organs of sense, im- 
pressions are received and conveyed to the sensorium, pro- 
ductive there, of effects varying according to the nature of the 
recipient. These give rise to the varied operations of the mind 
or soul, which, without the cooperation of the external senses, 
could never give evidence of its existence. 

Now a slight extension of these views will probably lead us 
to acquiesce in an opinion maintained by many writers, that 
animals inferior to man, are likewise possessed of that prin^ 
ciple or essence called a soul. 

Why is man defined to be a reasonable or reasoning animal ? 
It is because he can reason from cause to effect, and can trace 
effects to causes ; because he possesses the passions of love, 
hope, fear, &c.; and especially because he possesses that most 
important faculty of memory. But if this be the case, can 
any one deny to inferior animals, whom we choose to desig- 
nate by the name of brutes, many, or all of the above quali- 
ties or passions, or of the faculty or power of memory? The 

established principles, which in a short time may be possibly over- 
thrown, to make place for others, that in turn will afford amusement 
to the philosophers ol* a future period ! Are we warranted to be intole- 
rant to each other on speculative, metaphysical and mysterious contro- 
versies, whilst absolutely ignorant of the nature of that tangible 
matter that forms both brute and animated nature ? And I may further 
ask, whatever be the character and properties of matter, here on 
(sarth — may not the same great Architect employ in another state of 
existence, materials altogether different from them, and impressed by 
laws distinct from those that govern the systems of this material uni* 
verse ? 



63 

dog, our familiar associate, will sufficiently answer such denial. 
Acute and sensible, alive to friendship and affection, he appears 
on many occasions to reason from causes to their effects, and 
from a dread of punishment, he seems equally to retrace his 
ideas back to the causes that led to it on former occasions, and 
wisely therefore he avoids their repetition. 

The faculty or power of reasoning, seems to result from a 
combination of ideas. The man who is persuaded of the ex- 
istence of a Supreme Being, is led by a train of reasoning to 
view him in the wonders of creation ; and by a train not much 
dissimilar, the dog is kept in awe of that punishment, which 
memory informs him was inf]icted for such or such a fault, and 
which reflection or association of ideas leads him to anticipate 
a renewal of, on a repetition of the same. How evidently too, 
does he express the emotions or passions of joy or sorrow, of 
hope, fear, anger, shame, &c., according to the varied situation 
in which he may be placed ; can man describe them by actions 
more expressive ? Now, if these propositions are correct, must 
they not confirm what is above sustained, that animals do pos-» 
sess, in varied degrees, like man, those mental affections on 
which the latter sets so high an estimate, and that memory 
forms the basis of such powers, by which, through appro- 
priate organs, their existence is developed? 

If then it is admitted, that all which the superiority of man 
enables him to accomplish, is the result of reason,- it must be 
conceded that animals, who evince by similar proofs that they 
can reason in a similar manner, although inferior in degree, 
and that they are susceptive of similar impressions; must owe 
such powers to a similar cause as that through which they 
are produced in man ; and that the latter excels him in the 
exact ratio in which the effects and operations of the powers 
of ratiocination are superior in number and degree. 

These remarks lead us back to a further consideration of 
that interesting subject, the quality or nature of the soul, which, 



64 

although I regard it as being altogether mysterious and beyond 
our comprehension, yet I have ventured to speak of it as not 
incompatible on that account with metaphysical investigation, 
which in every particular owes its existence to the inquiries as 
to this unknown agent, whatever maybe its essence or charac- 
ter. The power of ratiocination being shown to exist in ani- 
mals, though inferior to that of man, and such power in man 
being uniformly ascribed to the presence of a soul, it seems a 
legitimate and necessary consequence, that we should attri- 
bute a similar power in animals to a like agency. If then we 
maintain the immateriality of the human soul, we must un- 
questionably invest that of animals with the same quality. It 
appears the inevitable consequence of the preceding data ; for 
so closely do the powers of ratiocination in brutes resemble 
those of man, so deducible are they from a similar source; 
that what the one is, of such like character and nature must 
be the other; unless we most unphilosophically and unrea- 
sonably attempt to establish two principles to effect one and the 
same result ! 

But on the contrary, should we contend that all the sagacious 
actions of brutes are the result of mere corporeal organization 
alone, and altogether unconnected with an essence so divine as 
that of a soul ; then, as the superiority of man depends entirely 
on his preeminence in the same power of ratiocination, it 
would seem to follow, that such superiority may equally arise 
from a corresponding superiority of corporeal organization. 
Are we at all acquainted with the absolute refinement of which 
matter is susceptible? And refined it must be in an exquisite 
degree, if the rational actions of brutes are dependent upon it. 
We have above demonstrated the infinite tenuity of matter in 
the mite and microscopic animals, and in mere brute and in- 
organic matter we may perceive an equal diversity — as for 
instance, in comparing the amount of matter contained (by 
mere affinity of aggregation of which we know as little as we 



65 

do of the soul itself) in a cubic inch of gold, with the same 
bulk of hydrogen gas; calculation will demonstrate the dif- 
ference to be as 100,000 to 1. Even this is trifling, if we 
take the odorous particles emanating from a grain of musk, 
diffusing themselves over a vast space for weeks or months, 
without any appreciable loss of weight in the musk itself — or 
perhaps the yet more attenuated matter of contagion, which, 
whatever it be, is probably, nay, we may say, certainly of a 
compound nature, and consequently composed of matter yet 
more attenuated ; or, in fine, compare the matter of light, an 
atom of which is small enough to penetrate the dense cornea 
of the organ of vision, and the still denser medium of the 
diamond; yet it is itself, if our philosophy of light is true,* 
compounded of seven distinct and separable particles ! — and 
then we shall, perhaps, be obliged to acknowledge that we 
know but little about the whole subject. Because we, with 
profound arrogance, have thought it expedient to give to inani- 
mate matter the name of brute, inert, &c., must we, therefore, 
deem it absolutely impossible to be so modified by its divine 
Creator, that it could be rendered capable of perception and of 
thought ! when we see on all sides, and in ourselves, this very 
matter, brute and inactive, and inorganic as it once was, through 
the energy of Omnipotence, vivified, and combined in organs 
replete with sensibility, and fitted as a receptacle for the habi- 
tation of that yet more wonderful accompaniment, a soul 1 
The immaterialist who thus argues, confutes himself, for he 
cannot conceive mere abstract matter to be so exquisitely 
modified as to give intelligence to brutes, without granting at 
the same time, that, however effected, it is of a character, in 
all respects, similar to the power that actuates himself. 

Am I wrong in supposing the opinions of those who main- 

*Dr. Franklin says '' I am much in the dark about light;" yet he 
was a profound and enlightened philosopher. 

f2 



66 

tain the immateriality of the soul, and affirm the absolute im- 
possibility of its material existence, without being able to de- 
monstrate from positive revelation on either side of the ques- 
tion, by which its peculiar essence may be fully established; 
am I wrong, I repeat, in presuming that opinion to be chiefly 
based on the immortality of this incomprehensible associate of 
material existence? Independently of the conviction enter- 
tained by them that mere matter is incapable of being ren- 
dered qualified for ratiocination, the opinion is supposed to be 
strengthened by the declaration, that the world and. its con- 
tents are to be ultimately destroyed by fire, and, consequently, 
that the soul, if material, would be therein comprehended. 
Yet in opposition to the direct and plain expressions of St. 
Paul, they do not hesitate to maintain the resurrection of the 
same identical body that is deposited at death in the grave. — 
Why is it not to partake of the like destruction with all other 
matter in this closing catastrophe? But the great apostle 
speaks of the resurrection of the dead, not of the body — and 
every where, in so doing, especially in 1 Cor. xv. he seenis 
clearly to shut out every idea that could lead to the popular 
belief, and in words so explicit, that they cannot be set aside 
by the sophistry of a vague and self-sufficient philosophy. 

"How are the dead raised," asks St. Paul, "and with what 
body do they come?" "Thou fool," (adds he, as if antici- 
pating the disputes that have since arisen on the subject) 
"Thou fool, thou sowest not that body that shall 6e;" and 
following up his argument, he adds, " So also is the resurrec- 
tion of the dead; it is sown in corruption, it is raised in incor- 
ruption ; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual 
body : — and I say unto you, thai flesh and blood cannot in- 
herit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit in- 
corruption ; we shall all he changed — the dead shall be raised 
incorruptible, and we shall be changed." If these words are 
true, and who can doubt them, where do we find a trace of 



67 

the same body in which life is brought to a close? What, in 
fact, would be the inevitable result of such an event? Would 
not heaven be peopled with every variety of disease whereby 
existence had been terminated? In place of beauty and com- 
plete perfection, on all sides we should encounter the most dis- 
gusting objects! "Plague, pestilence and famine," cancer, 
ulcers of every variety, leprosy, dropsy, decrepitude, with 
madness and monstrosities of all descriptions! — Are such to 
be the inmates of the New Jerusalem? No! "We all are 
changed in the twinkling of an eye." The bodies there, 
whatever be their nature and the change alluded to, are not 
those that here invested the immortal spirit, formed in the 
image of its Maker; and although the expressions of the 
apostle are at present wrapt in mystery for us, they yet pro- 
claim the all-important doctrine of a resurrection !* But to 
leave this digression, — 

* The following extract from a sermon of the Rev. Paul H. Maty, 
is given in a review of his book (Analyt. Rev. 3, p. 32, 1789), as his 
"Objections to the resurrection of the same body,'' which the re- 
viewer adds, "are argumentative and philosophically conclusive: 
they are, perhaps, as well stated as in any part of the controversies 
on that subject." 

" The Deists (says he) would not attempt to contradict the particu- 
lar fact (the resurrection of Christ) if we did not make use of it to 
prove a general proposition — ' As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall 
all be made alive.' This is what he rejects with disdain; and, it 
must be owned, he would do it with reason too, if, instead of resting 
satisfied with what has been taught us by the evangelists and apos- 
tles, we should adopt the reveries and baseless superstructures of 
modern philosophers. If, for instance, we should pretend our bodies 
will be exactly the same at the resurrection as they are now; how is 
it possible they should be exactly the same .? — What size, what shape, 
what dimensions could a man have, if all the atoms that at separate 
times have entered into his composition, were collected into one 
mass .? Is the world, or even the universe, large enough to supply its 
assembled inhabitants, of all ages, with matter .'' How can it be pos- 



68 

Should it be urged that corporeal organization, although 
capable of being wrought up to that exquisite degree that is 
perceptible in the action of brutes, is yet incapable of that 
higher degree of intellect perceptible in man ; and that he re- 
quires the addition of an immaterial essence, called a soul, in 
order to produce the difference perceived between them; it 
may be replied, that to argue thus is to determine by our finite 
conceptions, what infinite Omnipotence and wisdom is able to 
accomplish, and to affirm positively, the precise extent to which 
the Almighty can go, in modifying that matter which he Him- 
self created. Moreover, it tends to establish an additional 
principle, by whatever name it may be called, when, for aught 
we know, and indeed from all we may justly infer from all 
around us, one alone is quite sufficient. It is, apparently, 
self-evident, that if the Almighty can so modify inert and 
senseless matter as to render it susceptive of life and of rational 
perceptions and actions in brutes to a limited degree; we can 
have no cause to deny to his omnipotence, the ability" still 
more exquisitely to modify that matter, so as to render it 
capable of the far superior acts of ratiocination that are con- 
spicuous in man. " Must every thing be impossible that our 
insufficiency cannot account for ? Are there not innumerable 
mysteries in nature which accident reveals, or experimental 
philosophy demonstrates to us daily? And shall we yet pre- 



sible that elements which have passed successively through many 
bodies, should at the same time resume their places in each of them? 
Who should adjudge the particle, which, like the wife mentioned in 
the Gospel, has not only belonged to seven, but to seventy times 
seven proprietors? The ground is not tenable ; thank heaven, then, 
that we are not obliged to defend it; let us repair to the eminence, 
where, indeed, we shall be impregnable ; let us assert with St. Paul, 
that, though we shall not all die, we shall be all changed ; that we 
shall rise again with bodies, but with different and far more glorious 
bodies than those we went to sleep in." 



69 

sume to limit the power of that Great Author of that very- 
nature ? What was it that created matter ? What was it that 
gave that matter motion ? What was it that to that matter 
and motion added sensation and life ? What was it that super- 
added to these, consciousness, intelligence and reflection] 
What was it" — but enough. Sterne's Koran, p. 50. 

Now if from nothing all this has been accomplished by an 
Almighty Power, well may we, as above, ask, " shall we pre- 
sume to limit itl" Does not our Saviour tell the Pharisees, 
(Luke xix. 40,) " if these should hold their peace the stones 
would immediately cry out?" Did He mean this literally? 
It is to be so presumed, for no sense or meaning would other- 
wise appear to be connected with an expression so extravagant. 
If then power could be thus given to mere matter to speak, 
could not that same matter be rendered capable of ratiocina- 
tion ?* 

The fact appears to be, that we are so tenacious of affecting 
to know the utmost qualities and capabilities of things, the 
ne-plus ultra of every object of science, fluctuating as it ever has 
been, that we delight to circumscribe the boundaries of Omni- 
potence, and thereby to affix a limitation to it! We pride 
ourselves moreover, in drawing thus a line of demarcation be- 
tween ourselves and the beasts that perish, as we are pleased 
to say ; although formed of like materials, and constituting in 
fact, the chief intervening link between us and inanimate mat- 
ter. We cannot endure the idea of having an organization 
similar to that of brutes, by which both they and we are ren- 
dered capable of information ; but fondly ascribe to ourselves 
a superior and spiritual essence which we deny to them, con- 
sidering it impossible that any thing beneath an immaterial 

* The miracle wrought in the Ass, by which he was enabled to re- 
monstrate with his master Balaam, is assuredly as great as that which 
took place on the day of Pentecost. 



70 

soul can be productive of thought and reason in so high extent 
as man evinces, distinct in character and operation^from that 
low and mean intelligence which we unwillingly admit in 
brutes. Nor is this aversion lessened by the persuasion that 
beasts will perish forever at the termination of their present 
life, inasmuch as the immaterialty of the soul is regarded as 
the cause thai leads to a future state of endless duration, as if 
that which had a beginning, could not possibly be equally 
destroyed at the fiat of its Omnipotent Creator ! What indeed 
are we to infer from the words of our Saviour himself, who 
tells us to fear Him who can destroy both soul and body ? Be 
it material or immaterial, it would then appear not to be neces- 
sarily indestructible, or the expression of our Saviour must 
be^taken in some other sense than that which the literal mean- 
ing conveys. 

But the immortality of the soul is not necessarily implicated 
with either a material or immaterial character. In either 
case, that immortality must assuredly depend on the will of 
its Maker. If material, nothing short of that Power to which 
it owes its being, is capable of effecting its subsequent destruc- 
tion. Alike in this respect with all created matter, every 
atom is eternal as Himself, except at His decree. Hence at 
His pleasure it may be annihilated; or if compounded of some 
of the varied atoms of creation, the simple decomposition or 
separation of those atoms will destroy at once the specific ag- 
gregation on which its essence depended. But if it be imma- 
terial, which it must be in brutes if it is so in man, still its 
immortality will be dependent solely on the will of God. 

It may be incidentally remarked in reference to the in- 
destructibility of matter save by the fiat of its Creator, that we 
are told in Scripture, that the world and all contained therein 
is to be destroyed by fire. It is not said that it will be anni- 
hilated; nor have we any reason from revelation or otherwise 
to believe that any particle of matter will experience such a 



^1 

fate. It will perliaps be readily admitted, from what w^e know 
of the agency of heat in changing the forms of bodies, and by 
overpowering their aggregation, thereby bringing their parti- 
cles into new combinations, that a small increase of that tem- 
perature which man even is capable of producing by artificial 
means, would amply suffice to destroy completely the aggrega- 
tion of matter, even of such as art has never yet accomplish- 
ed;* and by thus overpowering the force of attraction, the 
whole globe and its contents would probably be converted 
into a gaseous state of chaotic confusion similar to that in which 
it first existed, and from which it was withdrawn by those 
affinities that were impressed upon it by Omnipotence.f Now, 

* See an admirable communication " On the physical facts con- 
tained in the Bible compared with the discoveries of modern sciences," 
by Marcel de Serres, in the Edinb. Philosophical Journal, — and from 
thence printed in Littell's Living Age for May, 1845 — which power- 
fully strengthens the preceding, &c. — See also an interesting paper by 
M. Simon Tyssot, in the 12th Vol. Journal Litteraire, p. 154, printed at 
the Hague, 1723, 12mo., in which some bold speculations on the sub- 
ject of Creation, appear to forestall most of those of the present period, 
as deduced from the Geology of the Earth. 

f " Gaseous State of the Earth. — Though the mind, accustomed 
to philosophical inquiries, may find it difficult to comprehend the idea 
that this planet once existed in a gaseous state, this difficulty will 
vanish upon considering the nature of the materials of which it is 
composed must constantly undergo. Water offers a familiar example 
of a substance existing on the surface of the globe, in the separate 
states of rock, fluid and vapour, for water consolidated into ice is as 
much a rock as granite or the adamant; and as we shall hereafter 
have occasion to remark, has the power of preserving for ages the 
animals and vegetables that may be therein embedded. Yet, upon an 
increase of temperature, the glaciers of the Alps, and the icy pin- 
nacles of the arctic circles, disappear; and, by a degree of heat still 
higher, might be resolved into vapour; and by other agencies might 
be separated into two invisible gases, oxygen and hydrogen. Metals 
may, in like manner, be converted into gases; and in the laboratory 
of the chemist, all kinds of matter pass easily through every grade of 



72 

as such laws were the offspring of His will alone, should it 
please Him simply to suspend them, all action, whether chemi- 
cal or mechanical, would be at an end ; and new laws, under 
the same Almighty direction, would readily produce a new 
earth, such as we are assured will be the successor of that we 
now inhabit; and, which may subserve the nature of those spi- 
ritual or other beings who may be assigned for its inhabitants. 
Whilst apparently, a more simple view of this catastrophe than 
that of popular belief, it has the aspect of philosophic proba- 
bility, which might even lead us to imagine that this earth, is 
in fact, a renewal of a preceding one, which in like manner 
may have had its predecessors in a regular and stated course, 
under the direction of the Divine Will. 

Recurring from this digression, we remark, that it does not 
seem a necessary consequence, in admitting that brutes have 
souls of a nature somewhat similar to that of man, that they 
are, like his, invested with the character of immortality; or, 
in other words, that they will not experience the common 
destruction of all created matter. If God has been graciously 
pleased to grant that high prerogative to man, it was clearly 
optional, and subservient to Flis divine intentions, and equally 
so to deny it in the case of brutes. But as nothing certain is 
revealed on the subject, the affirmative of a future existence of 
the souls of brutes has been frequently and warmly maintained 
by many humane and philanthropic writers, under the Chris- 
tian as well as under other dispensations.* The Pythagorean 

transmutation, from the most dense and compact to an aeriform state. 
We cannot, therefore, refuse our assent to the conclusion, that the 
entire of our globe might be resolved into a permanently gaseous 
form, merely by the dissolution of the existing combinations of matter." 
Mantell's Wonders of Geology. 

* See Rush— Medical Museum, Vol. 4, p. 229. Heartley— History 
of Man, Vol. 2, p. 436. Hildrop, Free Thoughts, &c. Athenian 
Oracle, Vol. 1. British Magazine and Review, Vol. 3) p. 357. 



73 

transmigration of the soul, and all its ramifications, appears to 
have had its origin in this or some analogous opinion : and when 
we notice the tortures, privations and miseries of the brute 
creation, arising from our wants or from our caprices, we can 
scarcely reconcile it with our ideas of the mercy and justice 
of their Creator, if we fail to accredit a future retribution for 
their present extreme and unmerited sufferings. 

The following remarks of Dr. Adam Clarke, in his Com- 
mentaries on the 8th ch. of St. Paul to the Romans, are too 
enlightened and too closely connected with this subject, to re- 
quire any apology for their introduction here. 

" THE restoration of the brute creation to a state of happi- 
ness has been thought by several to be the doctrine of verses 
19, — 25. In the notes on those verses I have given reasons 
against this opinion ; and have proved that the Gentiles and 
not the irrational part of the creation, are the persons of whom 
the Apostle speaks ; nor can any consistent interpretation be 
given of the place if it be applied to the brute creation. But 
although this doctrine is not contained in the above verses, it 



Universal Magazine, Vol. 34, p. 323. Gentleman's Magazine, Vol. 
38, p. 177. Cath. M. Graham — Letters on Education. Jortin's Sermon 
on the Goodness of God. — Universal History, Vol. l,p. 96 — and many 
others. 

" There was a book lately published, styled ^Of the Future Lives of 
Brutes,' which gave great offence to Divines. I cannot see why. 
The only fault I found with it was, that it was poorly written. Is 
there only such a proportion of salvation in the gift of Providence, 
that parsons need be jealous of the participation ? To suppose the 
inferior animals of creation to be endowed with souls, must presup- 
pose our own to be out of all dispute." Sterne's Koran, p. 115. 

The celebrated physician Sennertus, " was accused of blasphemy 
and impiety, on pretence of having taught, that the souls of beasts 
are not material; for this was affirmed to be the same thing with 
teaching that they are as immortal as the soul of man." Biogr. Dic- 
tionary, Vol. 11. London, 1784. 

G 



74 

does not follow that the doctrine itself is not true. Indeed 
there are several reasons which render the supposition very 
probable. 

1* The brute creation never sinned against God; nor are 
they capable of it : and consequently, cannot be justly liable 
to punishment. 

2. But the whole brute creation is in a state of suffering ; 
partake of the common infirmities and privations of life as 
well as mankind ; they suffer, but who can say that they suf- 
fer justly ? 

3. As they appear to be necessarily involved in the suffer- 
ings of sinful man ; and yet neither through their fault nor 
their folly ; it is natural to suppose that the Judge of all the 
earth, who ever does right, will find some means by which 
these innocent creatures shall be compensated for their suffer- 
ings. 

4. That they have no compensation here, their afl!lictions, 
labours and death prove : and if they are to have any compen- 
sation, they must have it in another state. 

5. God, the fountain of all goodness, must have originally 
designed them for that measure of happiness which is suited 
to the powers with which he had endowed them. But, since 
the fall of man, they never had that happiness : and, in their 
present circumstances, never can. 

6. As to intelligent beings, God has formed his purposes in 
reference to their happiness, on the ground of their rational 
natures. He has decreed that they shall be happy if they 
will, all the means of it being placed within their power ; and 
if they be ultimately miserable, it is the effect of their own, un- 
constrained choice. Therefore, His purpose is fulfilled, either 
in their happiness or misery ; because he has purposed that 
they shall be happy if they please; and that misery shall be 
the result of their refusal. 

7. But it does not appear that the brute creation are incapa- 



75 

ble of this choice ; and it is evident that they are not placed 
in their present misery through either their choice or their sin; 
hence, if no purpose of God can be ultimately frustrated, these 
creatures must be restored to that state of happiness for which 
they have been made ; and of which they have been deprived 
through the transgression of man. 

8. To say, that the enjoyments which they have in this life, 
are a sufficient compensation, is most evidently false; for, had 
not sin entered into the world, they would have had much 
greater enjoyments, without pain, excessive labour and toil, 
and without death ; and all those sufferings which arise from 
its predisposing causes. Nor does it appear that they have 
much happiness from eating, drinking and rest, as they have 
these only in the proportion in which they are necessary to 
their existence as the slaves of men. Therefore, allowing 
that they have even gratification and enjoyment in life, they 
have much less than they would have had, had not sin entered 
into the world; and, consequently, they have been deprived of 
the greater portion of the happiness designed for them by their 
bountiful Creator. 

9. It is therefore obvious, that the gracious purpose of God 
has not been fulfilled in them ; and, that as they have not lost 
their happiness through their own fault, both the beneficence 
and justice of God are bound to make them a reparation. 

10. Hence it is reasonable to conclude, that, as from the 
present constitution of things, they cannot have the happiness 
designed for them in this state, they must have it in another." 

Man is said to be made a little lower than the angels; we 
may suppose, in explanation of this, that one or more senses 
are superadded in the last, to the five that man enjoys, and if 
so, what an infinitely superior range must the faculties of the 
angelic host necessarily possess above us ! Nor is it at all 
improbable, that such addition may be allotted to us in a future 



76 

state, in order to raise us to an equality with them.* In brutes, 
although equally possessed of five senses, how then is it that 
such inequality exists? If in both man and brute a soul exists 
(material or immaterial, for what it is in the one, it must be in 
the other), with senses equal in number, — (some of which are 
more perfect in many animals than in the human race;) why 
must we presumptuously shut them out from a future state, in 
which they might experience some compensation for their un- 
merited sufferings in this? Why may not a haven if not a 
heaven, be reserved for them, accordant with their qualifica- 
tions and capacity of happiness ? What is the apparently 
distinctive difference between them, that afibrds superiority to 
man? If we trace the faculties of each, we find some pos- 
sessed by man which are denied to brutes, — among these, 
most prominently appears, a sense of Deity ! It is true that 
a slight trace of a moral faculty appears in brutes, as evinced 
by a sense of shame on some occasions, quickened by the 

* Tertullian speaks of the Elysian fields as a determinate locality, 
which is spoken of as Abraham's bosom, &c.; and he asks " if the souls 
are not there in expectation of the final judgment? and what is their 
state at that time ? Shall we sleep then ? Amongst the living, the 
soul does not sleep — it is for the body," — and Origen, in his 7th 
homily on Leviticus, among other matters, when speaking of the 
place to which the souls of the saints go after death, says " Puto 
quod Sancti quique, discedentes ex hac vita, permaneant in loco aliquo 
in terra posito, que paradisum dicit scriptura divina, velut in quodam 
eruditionis loco, et ut ita dixerim adjutorio, vel schola animarum: in 
quo de ojiinibus his, quae in terris viderant, doceantur, judicia quoque 
qusedam accipiant de consequentibus et futuris, sicut in hac quoque 
vita positi judicia que dat futurorum, licet per speculum in senigmate, 
tamen ex aliqua parte conciperant, quas manifestius et lucidius Sanctis 
in suis locis et temporibusrevelantur,'' &c. 

Extracts from Bibliotheca Sancta, by Sixtus Sinensis, 1592. We 
perceive that Origen has here forestalled some writers of this period, 
in respect to the improvement and instruction of the soul, in its tem- 
porary abode between death and the final judgment. 



77 

means of memory; hut of a sense of Deity, no evidence exists, 
and hence they are truly shut out from all claims as moral 
agents; and cannot be subject to punishment by a benevolent 
Creator for actions uncontrollable from such a sense, and by 
w^hich, if they possessed it, they would be led to a knowledge 
of good and evil. Perfect then as they may be, alike with 
man in the number and integrity of their common senses, we 
may readily conclude (and by it, add strength to the funda- 
mental principles of phrenology) that no location in their brain 
is afforded to that important faculty, nor organ through whose 
medium its actions might be developed.* Hence (as in idiots) 
the Deity unknown, cannot be acknowledged and duly honour- 
ed. A revelation of a resurrection and of a future state, would 
have been useless; although such a resurrection may ensue, 
and happiness enjoyed, proportioned to their inferior faculties, 
as here displayed. 

The opinion of Dr. Clarke above stated, must evidently be 
associated with the existence of some spiritual or immortal 
essence in the brute, independent of the corporeal frame, of 



* In days of yore, a soul was supposed to exist not in brutes only, 
but even in plants. This was a well received opinion among philoso. 
phers, perhaps as wise as those of present notoriety. 

" In plantis est tantum anima vegetativa ; in brutis est tantum 
anima scnsitiva; in hominibus est tantum una anima, scilicet intellec- 
tiva, in qua ceterce continenter," &c. Margarita Philosophica, 1508, 
4to. Lib. ii. Chap. 15. The good folks of that distant period were 
more tolerant than in these enlightened days. 'Tis even stated in ch. 
16 of the above work, when considering the soul as a light, inclosed 
in a lantern of horn or glass, which is bright in proportion to the clear- 
ness and cleanliness of the inclosure, though the light itself inside is 
unchanged, that " In stultis igitur et fatuis, anima rationalis est : 
cujus tamen ob corporis indispositionem, opera minus emicant.? 
*' Recte," replies the teacher, — " Recte, nam etsi intellectiva organica 
non sit : Conjuncta tamen corpori, corporalium species per sensus 
recipit !" 

g2 



78 

which it was the miserable tenant. What his particular views 
in this respect were, are not distinctly enunciated; and the 
extract is to be received for as much as it is worth, in con- 
nexion with the object of this essay, without further enlarge- 
ment. From all that has been said, without perplexing our- 
selves by additional remarks on the nature and character of 
the soul, it would seem obvious, that, without the intermedium 
of corporeal organs, it would be to us, as though it had no ex- 
istence; and those organs must be of a definite and determi- 
nate character; its multifarious actions of thought, word or 
deed, depend entirely on the nature and degree of perfection in 
the respective organs, through which it is manifested :— vision 
accomplished by an action of the soul, through the agency of 
the eye and its appendages, cannot, by volition, be effected 
through the ear, however anxious the mind might be to modify 
the channel of its operation. The soul is, therefore, absolutely 
restrained to such actions alone, which the construction of the 
different organs is adapted to accomplish ; and those actions 
will be in due vigour and proportion, just according to their 
healthy or imperfect state. Could we see as distinctly, and 
observe the organs of the intellectual faculties, with equ'al care 
and precision, as the more external ones of sense, we probably 
would entertain a more favourable impression as to the doc- 
trines of phrenology, if indeed it is itself insufficient to pro- 
duce conviction of its truth. 

It may surely claim attention, and is deserving of considera- 
tion, why, if the operations of the soul are altogether inde- 
pendent of corporeal organization, why, nevertheless, those 
operations are perfect, in the ratio of the health and perfection 
of the organs and their functions.* Why should they decrease 

* The organs of the sensorium or brain, numerous as they are re- 
presented to be, yet they all are actuated or set in motion by one mys- 
terious principle — the soul. This principle of all intelligence may be 
supposed to act occasionally through the medium or instrumentality 



79 

in perfection, exactly in the ratio in which, from age, disease 
or accident, those bodily organs become imperfect? Numer- 

of one organ alone, sometimes through two or more, producing there- 
by a corresponding diversity of effect, and that beneficial or injurious 
according as the nature of such combinations may be harmonious or 
the reverse. If such be the case, the sensorium may, not inaptly, be 
likened to a vast organ (musical) of an equal number of stops, all 
called into operation through the agency of one great uniform princi- 
ple, the wind, collected in a reservoir or bellows, which is distributed 
through appropriate channels or pipes, framed in conformity to the 
intentions of the maker, as a flute, a trumpet or other musical instru- 
ment. By opening one or more of those stops, alone or in combina- 
tion, a concert is produced, harmonious or otherwise, according to the 
judicious or faulty association of the musician ; that is, exactly in the 
ratio in which the respective notes are caused to combine. The fine 
and delicate notes of the flute can scarcely associate correctly with the 
loud and martial notes of the trumpet or the drum, or they would 
probably be overpowered in the louder manifestation of those instru- 
ments. 

An organ may be perfect in the hands of the musician in the mani- 
festation of a single stop alone ; it becomes improved by the addition 
of two or more, progressively in number, up to the full extent of its 
construction ; each in itself is perfect, yet the cooperation of all is 
essential to the highest state of harmony for which the instrument 
was intended, because all the exquisite combinations or manifestations 
of sound, constituting the concert, could not be known, save from the 
associated action of every part. 

May we not affirm that thus it is with the mind or soul, and the 
organ by which it is developed, the brain, acting through appropriate 
and constituted channels ? The mind is there, but should some organ 
be defective, or altogether wanting, through which it was intended to 
operate ; that operation must necessarily be wanting or defective also.* 
The intellect is consequently extensive and perfect, in the ratio of the 
number and perfection of the organs through which the soul performs 
its part:- — hence the chain of intellect from that of man, down to the 
lowest order of animal life — improved in some by education — in others 
restrained to one fixed and unvaried standard, called instinct, supply- 
ing adequately all their wants, which are wisely limited to a few par 
ticulars, beyond which they have no aspirations, to perplex and worry 
them. 



80 

ous are the questions that present thenaselves as to the deterio- 
ration of the faculties of both body and mind, arising from 
effusion of water or blood, from tumours in the brain, from gas- 
tric and other intestinal affections, from hypochondriasis, phre- 
nitis, apoplexy and various other diseases ; and further re- 
quiring to be informed how it is, that " the soul, secure in its 
existence," is nevertheless compelled to follow in its opera- 
tions, and to evince them to the world, precisely in the degree 
of perfection or imperfection which the bodily organs pre- 
scribe, when under the influence of morbid causes ; or, when in 
health, under that of an appropriate or inappropriate education ! 
How could madness, idiocy or any mental disease become 
apparent, or even have an existence in man, but for that inti- 
mate though inscrutable connexion, and absolute dependence 
of the soul, on the existing state of healthy or unhealthy ma- 
terial organization ? Surely it will not be contended that the 
soul is insane or idiotic, because of apparently imperfect 
actions through imperfect and diseased organs ! Nor can it 
be supposed to be restored to health and original perfection, 
without the previous recovery of those organs. It is true we 
cannot at all times demonstrate the lesion of those organs ; but 
are our imperfect observations, (so greatly owing to the im- 
perfection of the senses themselves,) to be viewed as conclu- 
sive in opposition to facts of daily occurrence, and sufficient 
of themselves to establish the truth of the great and funda- 
mental principles of phrenology? To myself, at least, it ap- 
pears that every fact we are acquainted with, relating to the 
physiology and pathology of the brain, if properly appreciated, 
can but tend to add conviction of its truth; for it is sufficiently 
obvious that the total, or partial destruction, or merely tem- 
porary suspension, of the intellectual faculties from lesions of 
the brain, admit of no explanation that does not embrace the 
connexion and dependence of those faculties in their opera- 
tions with the organization of that viscus ! Any other view 



81 

of the subject would impel us to conclude, that the soul con- 
sists of separate parts, and that it is capable of subdivision ; so 
that the monomaniac will have that portion of the soul insane, 
which is connected with the organ through which it exerts its 
action, whilst all the remaining portion of the soul may yet 
continue in a healthy state : — if the aberration of the individual 
extends to a second fimction or operation, a second portion of 
the soul must then have become deranged, and thus onwards, 
ad infinitum, to the highest range of perfect madness of all the 
separate and independent parts of this invisible and mysterious 
associate of the material organization ! But this must surely 
be the case, if the doctrine of phrenology is false, which 
assigns locality to organs by which alone the functions of the 
soul are externally perceived. Can we hesitate then to admit 
the possibility, the probability — nay, I would add the certainty, 
that malformation, or temporary disease of those organs that 
evince irregularity, do thereby modify or distort the regular 
train of mental ratiocination, whilst yet the soul is in its ac- 
customed health? The hypochondriac, who, standing in a 
corner, imagines himself to be a clock, and swings his arm to- 
and-fro as its pendulum, whilst, cluck, cluck, cluck, he gives 
out for its ticking : — The one who thinks his legs are glass, 
and carefully guards them from the slightest blow: — with 
hundreds of a like description, that are frequent in the records 
of medicine ; all these are nevertheless, on other subjects per- 
fectly rational, and argue as correctly as their neighbours and 
associates. Is the soul here, partially deranged, by which 
such strange vagaries may be thoroughly elucidated, without 
any reference to organic lesion of some part, by which the fijnc- 
tions are rendered imperfect? If so, we must classify the in- 
sane as mono-maniacs — bi-maniacs — tri-maniacs, &c. accord- 
ing to the number of the faculties thus erroneously developing 
their actions ! The Almighty is omnipresent throughout the 
wacro-cosm of the Universe ; whilst He has afforded to the soul 



82 

an omnipresence in the micro-cosm of man ! the most wonder- 
ful work of His creative power, with a state of organization, 
through which its operations are effected ; perfect, if those 
organs are in a perfect state, but defective, if under the in- 
fluence of malformation or disease.* 

I may perhaps strengthen all the preceding views in favour 
of Phrenology, by a familiar and domestic truth. It may be 
affirmed, that Divine Intelligence shines no where more emi- 
nently conspicuous, than in the fact, that the powers of the 
mind exactly quadrate with the state and age of man.f In 
infancy, which requires the care and attention of parental 
affection, the low ebb of the mental powers, calls for those 
exertions in its behalf, which the imperfect state of its own 
organs is incapable of effecting. The soul of an infant con- 
sidered in the abstract, and as unconnected with its corporeal 
mansion, must be regarded as equally perfect and complete, as 
that of the most accomplished adult ; but could it be equally 

* These truths were in a certain extent avowed by ancient philoso- 
phers : — thus Socrates says, that while the soul is immersed in matter, 
it staggers, strays, frets, and is giddy, like a man in drink. Plato^s 
Phedon. 

t Even our blessed Saviour, in assuming the form of man, became 
subject to the laws of mental and corporeal improvement as established 
by nature ; for we learn from St. Luke, ii. 52 — that " Jesus increased 
in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man." 

Aristotle asks, '' Cur Seniores amplius mente valeamus?" and he 
replies as follows, *' Quia natura parens instrumenta nobis duo in- 
seruit, Manum Corpori dedit, animo mentem; ca^terae scientiae, et 
artes nostra opera sunt, mentem ipsam opus esse naturae fecundum 
est. Ut igitur manu non jam inde ab ortu uti possumus, sed cum earn 
absolvit natursB, perfecitque procedente aetate ; ita mens non protinus, 
sed in senectute maxime nobis contingit, atque tunc praecipue con- 
sumraatur, et absolvitur. Accedit vero posterior mens, qu^m manuum 
facultas, quoniam mentis instrumenta posteriora sunt, quam manuum, 
est enim mentis instrumentum scientia." And Lactantius says, 
" Animam crescere in pueris, vigere in juvenibus, et in senibus minui." 



83 

active and efficient, in the imperfect and partially developed 
state of the organs through whose channels its actions are to 
be effective; some of the most delightful sensations of the 
human breast would be altogether wanting. How could our 
feelings be equally wrought upon by the infant pledges of 
affection, if the operations of the mind, in them, were perfect 
as our own ? The gradual unfolding of their faculties by the 
progressive improvement of their corporeal organization, con- 
stitutes, I apprehend, the powerful chain that binds the parent 
so closely to his offspring: for, we must admit, that a full and 
perfect intellect at birth, would subvert, or annihilate that 
peculiar and tender afTection so natural from man, even in the 
savage state, and not less powerful in brutes, towards their 
helpless progeny ! The tie that connects us to our children at 
the age of maturity, when the full development of their mental 
powers places them on an equality with ourselves, is produced 
assuredly, by a feeling^of a far different nature from that 
which their infant state elicits ; and it is from this very cir- 
cumstance, I think, that children can never experience the 
same peculiar sensations for the parent, which the latter feels 
for them. 

Before I bring this essay to a close, I will venture to add to 
it a fact, which, although apparently more immediately con- 
nected with physiognomy, (a branch, however, of phrenology,) 
is, if well founded, not undeserving of consideration, and of 
more extensive observation. It is now upwards of* forty 

* The position here assumed, which I thought was altogether my 
own, I have latterly found to have been indirectly adverted to, in a 
Very curious work, by Gaspar a Reies Franco, printed at Brussels 1641 
Fol. p. 399, entitled '* Elysius Jucundorum Qugestionum Campus," &c. 
One of the questions considered, is upon the subject of the similarity 
of persons — and numerous examples are given, many of great interest, 
and derived from ancient and modern writers; referring to some of 
these, he thus expresses himself: *' Nee minus mirandum, quod, hi in^^ 



84 

years since tKe idea presented itself to me, owing to some ac« 
cidental circumstance, and since that time, I have confirmed it 
satisfactorily to myself, by several hundred instances. I have 
repeatedly mentioned it to many friends and acquaintances, 
who have also coincided in the opinion, from their own sub- 
sequent observations. 

The fact I wish to establish, is, that whenever the general 
physiognomy of two individuals is the same, that is, when, 
according to common observation, two persons are said to 
resemble each other, (in face) or to be alike; so, in the same 
degree or extent of resemblance, will their voices be found to 
be the same; so that, if in the dark, I should hear the voice of 
an individual that resembled the voice of another .person with 
whom I was acquainted, I should have no difficulty in affirm- 
ing, that on seeing his face, I should find a resemblance also 
in it, to that of the other. So, in like manner, should I see an 
unknown person, in the most distant place, whose countenance 
and features resembled those of a well known friend or acquaint- 
ance, I would venture to affirm at once, that in voice, he would 
likewise resemble him. Could we therefore be assured of the 
likeness of the busts and portraits of ancient heroes, kings, 
philosophers and other great men that have reached us, and 

quibus tanta intervenit sirnilitudo, ut nee vultu, voce, loquela, corpore, 
actionibiis, aut exercitiis discerni possint, moribus quoque et animi 
affectibus etiam cohoereant ; quae enim inter se similia adeo sunt, ecldera 
temperie, aut saltern parem distante ita conveniunt, ut vitiis aut vir- 
tutibus eisdem insigniantur," &c. — with more to the like effect, by 
which it will be seen, that the views taken on the subject, are far 
more extended than I had ventured to adopt. They serve, however, 
to substantiate my more limited proposition, It is but lately that I 
have met with the facts to which I thus allude. I may add, that Ihe 
author amidst his numerous references, adds one from Virgil, 8th 
^neid — on Evander recognising .^neas, from the similarity of voice 
and face to his father Anchises. 

" Et vocem Anchisae magni, vuUusque recorder !" 



85 

find individuals of similar features, we might, prima facie, re- 
cognise in their voices, the voices of their precursors.* 

No doubt at first sight, this will be deemed extravagant, and 
devoid of foundation ; but the fact is, that it has a foundation 
in the organization of the parts themselves, and must, there- 
fore, be strictly true. To what shall we ascribe the basis 
of a similar set of features in different individuals of the past 
or present times ? Evidently, the only sure and fixed basis. 
must be the bony fabric of the face and fauces. If the muscles 
and covering of those bones are not dissimilarly located or 
attached ; in other words, if the various parts, through which 
the air emitted from the lungs in speech, are anatomically alike 
in both, the appearance externally must necessarily approxi- 

* The following extracts are in a measure corroborative of this 
opinion. The first is from " Strang's Germany in 1831 ;" the latter, 
from the Ledger of March 22d, 1845 — extracted from the London 
Morning Herald : 

" Metternich. — On the first glimpse which I had of the Austrian 
Prime Minister, I fancied I beheld the Duke of Wellington ; but on 
a second look I discovered that his face was fuller and much less sharp 
and haggard than that of the hero of Waterloo. There is, however, 
a very singular resemblance in the great lines and character of their 
faces. The contour of the visage is the same in each; the expression 
about the mouth is not unlike; while the self-complacence which 
plays on both countenances, indicating a feeling of conscious supe- 
riority, is remarkably similar. With so near a resemblance of face, 
perhaps it is not remarkable that their political feeling should be so 
much akin; and if we may be permitted to quote Lavater as an au- 
thority, it is not at all surprising to find that features which are hourly 
affected with the sentiment that mankind ought still to be ruled by 
the same engine which ambition, bigotry, and heartlessness invented, 
should come within the prescribed limits of the similarity which that 
ingenious butfancilul author assigns to brother characters." 

" Miss Cushman, who played Bianca, is a tall, commanding young 
lady, having a fine stage figure. The expression of her face is curious ; 
it reminds one of Macready ; a suggestion still further strengthened 
by the tones of her voice, and frequently by her mode of speech." 

H 



86 

mate in each, unless prevented by some accidental cause. But, 
since a similarity of external configuration affords the strongest 
reason for concluding that the internal and unseen parts are 
equally similar in formation and structure; the air passing 
through channels of like configuration in the various passages 
of the mouth and fauces, must necessarily afford a similar 
sound, and if employed in speech, will render that ahke in 
both cases, just as in two musical instruments of the same 
construction, attuned to the same pitch. Without attempting 
further explanation, I must repeat my firm conviction of the 
truth of my assertion ; I have verified it too often to entertain 
the slightest doubt upon the subject, and submit it to the further 
attention of my readers. At the same time, I must request them 
to remember, that, as all persons do not discover resemblances 
with equal facility, they must not be discouraged from the 
pursuit, if this should be their case. No doubt, every person 
has at times been much surprised, that he has seen at once a 
striking likeness in a portrait, to the individual for whom it was 
painted, whilst others around, as intimately acquainted with that 
individual, shall deny its having any resemblance. Now, for 
such diversity of opinion there surely must be some adequate ex- 
planation; and I imagine this to be, its dependance greatly, if 
not entirely, on the accidental circumstance of the one, at the 
first glance at the portrait being promptly impressed by one or 
more features that have been happily and faithfully traced by the 
artist, whilst the others, unfortunately striking on a feature not 
accurately given, or altogether erroneous, will never see the 
face but under this false aspect, the first impression will always 
predominate; that is, the erroneous features will invariably 
stand forth in bold relief; whilst the exact reverse attends the 
other, who will invariably behold those, by which the likeness 
was first established in his mind. If every feature was cor- 
rectly given, there could be no second opinion respecting the 
case, for all would see the painting uniformly. Such I appre- 



87 

hend may be the case in the above noticed physiognomical 
association of voice and feature, for although a strong resem- 
blance may exist between two persons, yet still, individual fea- 
tures may vary, which will create doubts as to likeness, in 
those who do not at first attach themselves to those features 
that are similar.* 

In conclusion, I must remark, that so far from the science 
of phrenology being a newly discovered one, it is, on the con- 
trary, one of the most ancient. I have in my possession a 
very curious old quarto volume, printed in 1508, entitled " Mar- 
garita Philosophica" — a kind of Encyclopedia, embracing in 
question and answer, between the master and his pupil, every 
science of the day, from the letters in the horn book, up to 
theology and metaphysics. Among the singular engravings 
with which it abounds is one of a human head or skull, on 
which are regularly depicted by metes and boundaries, the 
then acknowledged faculties of the mind, in their respective 
localities, with a precision not unworthy of Gall orSpurzheim. 
Well did Solomon declare that there is " nothing new under 
the sun." Doubtless the science of phrenology existed in the 
distant epoch of the Jewish monarch, although its principles 
had not been fully elucidated. It is, however, perfectly demon- 
strable, that, neither before nor since the time of Solomon, 
have the organs of amativeness and of philoprogenitiveness 
exhibited a stronger development than in his brain; for we 
have scriptural assurance, "that this illustrious and wisest of 
monarchs, had no less than seven hundred wives and three 
hundred concubines! His conscience on those points must 
have had but sC feeble development ! 

* Who has not discovered likenesses to man, brutes, castles, &c.,in 
the polished variegated slabs of our marble mantels, which others can- 
not always readily detect ; whilst various figures of a different charac- 
ter are detected in the same ? Each will, in all future investigation, still 
recognise the appearances which his imagination had first invented. 



88 

About a century after the work above mentioned, appeared 
a treatise by J. Heurnius, a medical writer of very superior 
merit, entitled " De morbis qui in singulis partibus humani 
capitis insidere consueverunt." At ch. x. p. 100 of this work, 
speaking of phrenitis and its various forms, he says " Secundo, 
differunt phrenitides loco affecto : nam vel totum cerebrum, vel 
ejus pars occupata est. Si pars cerebri, ea erit antica, postica, 
vel media. Scio hie disputari^ utrum principes facultates 
capitis, sedes in cerebro habeant" varias, necne," &c. ; from 
which it is evident, that the doctrine of localities was then a 
subject of discussion. It is, however, so rational, that it can 
scarcely be a source of wonder, to find that even centuries be- 
fore that period, the same opinion had met with supporters. 
Accordingly we learn that Galen, (the most renowned of the 
medical profession in any age, either ancient or modern,) who 
flourished about 200 years after our Saviour, had promulgated 
and sustained a similar doctrine. Heurnius refers us in proof 
of this, to Aph: 27 of 1st Prorrhetics ; and to his 4th book, 
de Locis afFectis, in which he says, that when the brain is 
affected, "apud anticos ventres suos laedi imaginationem : sin 
illi medios secum ventriculos trahant, perverti et cogitationem." 
He elsewhere inquires, why phrenitis has such varied symp- 
toms ; and why, at one time, the imagination, at another, 
thought or memory shall be defective ? " Hoc evenit (says 
he) ex humoris raptu ab una in aliam cerebri partem : itaque 
hoc fieri ex variarum cerebri mansionum irritatione, et altera- 
tione prsegrandi, unde successiva opera <puvrx(5rip!^ii, TiyevoviKH, 
et f^vtiixovevrixii, id est facultatum apprehendendi, judicandi, et 
memorandi." Further on, we find, "Si principes facultates 
quae in cerebro habitant, varias mansiones occupant, igitur 
unus idemque homo poterit ingeniosus esse, vique imaginandi 
excellere, et etiam memorandi potentia alios ante-ire : at ple- 
rumque ingeniosi immemores sunt : quin non raro memoria 
valide exsplendescente, torpescit imaginatio," &c. — And in 



89 

" Galeni, de Hippoc : et Plat : decretis, Lib. 5. ch. 4, we find 
the following : " Neque in una tantum animse parte, neque in 
una facultate et judicia et affectus existere, ut Chrysippus 
sentit ; sed, plures esse diversasque genere turn facultates, turn 
partes."* We need not to quote further; although we might 
abundantly, for the writings of Galen prove the subject to 
have been a favourite with him. It wanted merely a name to 
establish its scientific standing ; and I have merely adduced 
the above few extracts, to prove that phrenology is not now 
for the first time illustrated, but that it reaches back through 
sixteen centuries, if not to the time of Hippocrates, who lived 
nearly 400 years before Galen. 

I have now completed the object I had in view, of main- 
taining the firm belief I have long had of the truth of the great 
outlines and fundamental principles of phrenology, a belief 
unalloyed, I trust, by any slavish attachment to the vagaries to 
which it may have given rise. It is a science, which, though 
of long standing, as I have demonstrated, is nevertheless still 
in its infancy, and will probably so continue, until augmented 
elucidation shall have established a chain of facts so powerful, 
as to enforce a general opinion, that, so far from its considera- 
tion leading to infidelity or atheism, as many have affirmed, 
on the contrary it tends to magnify the power of the Deity in 
the manifestation of that part of His works, that is to survive 
" the wreck of matter and the crush of worlds !" 

* '' Quid enim rari habet phrenitis, quid admirationis ? An quod 
praecipuam animaB functionem, rationem inquam, et hominis sacrarium 
vitiet, et perturbet? — Minime quidem ; quia phrenitis rationem pro- 
pri^ non Icedit, sed illius organum turbat et vitiat ac optimam illius 
temperiem corrumpit, unde defectu instrumenti rationi advenit no- 
cumentum." — Campus Elysius, p. 742. 

THE END. 



( 



I 



i 



Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: Feb. 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 
(724)779-2111 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




013 774 195 7 





